Transparency of media ownership in Bulgaria

Last updated

Transparency of media ownership refers to the public availability of accurate, comprehensive and up-to-date information about media ownership structures to make possible for media authorities and the wider public to ascertain who effectively owns and controls the media. According to the expert Nelly Ognyanova, lack of transparency in media ownership is one of the major problem in the media system in Bulgaria. [1] In Bulgaria there are specific provisions concerning print, electronic media and broadcast media. The relevant law, in particular the Law on Radio and Television and the Law on Mandatory Deposition of Press and Other Works, requires the submission of data identifying the actual owners of electronic and print media and online registers are available to the public. Also, a law imposing restrictions on offshore companies to acquire shares and assets in different fields including the media sector, entered into force in 2014. In addition, under Bulgarian law, media are obliged to provide information about ownership upon request in conformity with the provisions set forth in the Law on Access to Public Information. Despite the existence of these legal transparency obligations, there are several problems concerning, on one side the application of the rules, on the other, the requirements themselves, which are not enough effective in ensuring the disclosure of the actual owners. Also, legal requirements are constantly circumvented and sanctions usually not applied. Moreover, according to experts, the law should not be limited to obligations concerning the ownership, but expand its scope to examine the origin of funding of media outlets as well. [1] [2] Overall, despite recent legislative changes, some loopholes remain, allowing non-transparency as regards to media ownership and funding and making possible to circumvent the law and conceal who the true owners of the media are. According to expert Ognyanova, there are several ways of circumventing the legal requirements: one example is the case of Krasikir Gergov, a former agent of the Communist-era State Security services and owner of advertising agencies that, while acting in the guise of a “consultant”, actually had a share of the ownership and a contract allowing him to exercise control over the newsroom of a media outlet in Bulgaria. [1] According to Professor Georgi Lozanov, a former member of the Council for Electronic Media, the introduction of the Access to Information Law could help in making more transparent the media sector, in particular media ownership and sources of funds which are largely opaque in Bulgaria. "There is no transparency of media capital whatsoever and one never knows what the real situation is [...]. The introduction of the Access to Information Act [...] represented an attempt at bringing the media to supply information about the sources and funds. Because, if you set up a media outlet and sell a product which is directly related to freedom of speech, it is normal to be able to track the business from the very beginning, thai is, to track the genealogy of the message in the business sense", remarked Professor Lozanov. [3]

Contents

Media-specific disclosure requirements for print media

In Bulgaria media organisations are required to report ownership information to a media authority under the Mandatory Deposition of Print and Other Materials Act (MDPOMA), in force since January 2001 and amended in 2010. The law covers only the print media and provides that information on ownership should be reported to the Ministry of Culture which has the responsibility to collect and publish online data on ownership submitted by print media. The law does not require the disclosure of the size of shareholding but includes the disclosure of the names of people holding shares on behalf of another (beneficial ownership) through brokerage and provides a definition of "ultimate owner" [4]

Also, under the MDPOMA law, newspapers and magazines are obliged to disclose their ownership data directly to the public through the publication of this information on the first issue of each newspaper each calendar year and every time there is a change in ownership or control of the media organisation. [5]

Overall, existing obligations under MDPOMA does not, on its own, allow to know the legal or natural persons who effectively own and ultimately control the media operating in Bulgaria because the size of shareholding is not made public. This information can only be obtained by cross-referencing the data provided under MDPOMA with those available in the Company Register, a public register containing ownership information on all the registered companies in the country. [6]

Another weakness in the transparency system of print media concerns the lack of guarantees for disclosing equity that secure media financially and by which ownership is acquired. [4] Besides criticism regarding legal provisions themselves, the implementation is another matter. Indeed, a further critical point concerns the effectiveness of the disclosure regime, with particular regard with the functioning of the sanctions system required by the law. As a matter of fact, according to public records consulted by Access-Info Europe, in the past few years there have not been cases of sanctions applied despite the fact that there have been evidence of cases of non-disclosure. This situation led to an article in the magazine Capital Weekly in January 2012 that revealed that many authorities in Bulgaria are not familiar with their obligations under the law. [6] A study conducted in 2014 shows that a series of important ownership changes in the Bulgarian media system that occurred in that year had not been recorded as it should have been done. [4] There are also journalistic investigations corroborating the fact that publishers of print media fail to comply with their duty to submit the required data and no fine have been imposed to sanction this. [4]

Media-specific disclosure requirements for broadcast media

The broadcast media are covered by the Radio and Television Act (RTA), adopted in 2008 and amended in 2010 and 2012. The law provides that broadcast media should present ownership data to the Electronic Media Council which has the responsibility to maintain public registers containing, among others, the data on ownership collected by the council. In particular, the law provides the disclosure of data on natural or legal persons exerting control over the management structure of the media concerned. The law defines "control over the media services provider" when a person controls, also by means of connected persons, more than 50% of the voters, or could directly or indirectly appoint more than 50% of the managing body of the media services provider, or could exert a significant influence on the decision-making process. Also, according to the RTA, interests held by owners (for instance, as shareholder or partner) in other media organisations have to be made public. Ownership information collected in the Register can be accessed online. [5] [6]

The major weak point of the disclosure regime for broadcast media concerns the fact that the obligation to make public the size of beneficial owners through brokerage is non-existent, even if, at the moment, brokerage is not a common practice in ownership media patterns in Bulgaria. [6]

Non Media-Specific Transparency Requirements

The law regulates the disclosure of ownership information for media organisations regularly registered as companies is the Company Register Act adopted in 2006 and in force since January 2008. As not all media are registered companies, as a matter of fact this law does not cover all media outlets operating in Bulgaria. For the media companies covered by the scope of this law, information have to be made to the Company Register, which is a public register. Information to be disclosed under this law includes: names of directors, names of shareholders (comprising beneficial shareholders through brokerage), members of management and supervisory boards, size of shareholdings, management details, the outcome of the company decision-making process, financial reports, constitutive acts, etc. Information on those with indirect control is also made public. This information is recorded electronically and available to the public online via the company register website maintained by the Registry Agency. Even if not all media operating in Bulgaria are covered by the scope of this provisions, overall, the information to be disclosed in the Company Register is quite comprehensive and is usually sufficient to ascertain the owners of the media registered as companies. [6]

Transparency requirements regarding Access to Public Information

The Bulgarian law on Access to Public Information sets forth some general requirements concerning transparency regarding management and ownership of the media. According to the law, citizens and legal persons are entitled to access information regarding:

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Non-disclosure agreement</span> Contractual agreement not to disclose specified information

A non-disclosure agreement (NDA), also known as a confidentiality agreement (CA), confidential disclosure agreement (CDA), proprietary information agreement (PIA), or secrecy agreement (SA), is a legal contract or part of a contract between at least two parties that outlines confidential material, knowledge, or information that the parties wish to share with one another for certain purposes, but wish to restrict access to. Doctor–patient confidentiality, attorney–client privilege, priest–penitent privilege and bank–client confidentiality agreements are examples of NDAs, which are often not enshrined in a written contract between the parties.

A shareholder of corporate stock refers to an individual or legal entity that is registered by the corporation as the legal owner of shares of the share capital of a public or private corporation. Shareholders may be referred to as members of a corporation. A person or legal entity becomes a shareholder in a corporation when their name and other details are entered in the corporation's register of shareholders or members, and unless required by law the corporation is not required or permitted to enquire as to the beneficial ownership of the shares. A corporation generally cannot own shares of itself.

Corporate transparency describes the extent to which a corporation's actions are observable by outsiders. This is a consequence of regulation, local norms, and the set of information, privacy, and business policies concerning corporate decision-making and operations openness to employees, stakeholders, shareholders and the general public. From the perspective of outsiders, transparency can be defined simply as the perceived quality of intentionally shared information from the corporation.

In domestic and international commercial law, a beneficial owner is a natural person or persons who ultimately owns or controls an interest in a legal entity or arrangement, such as a company, a trust, or a foundation. Legal owners, commonly described as the "registered owners", may hold those interests as beneficial owners or for the benefit of someone else, in which case they may be described as a "nominee".

The mass media in Georgia refers to mass media outlets based in the Republic of Georgia. Television, magazines, and newspapers are all operated by both state-owned and for-profit corporations which depend on advertising, subscription, and other sales-related revenues. The Constitution of Georgia guarantees freedom of speech. Georgia is the only country in its immediate neighborhood where the press is not deemed unfree. As a country in transition, the Georgian media system is under transformation.

The mass media in Bulgaria refers to mass media outlets based in Bulgaria. Television, magazines, and newspapers are all operated by both state-owned and for-profit corporations which depend on advertising, subscription, and other sales-related revenues. The Constitution of Bulgaria guarantees freedom of speech. As a country in transition, Bulgaria's media system is under transformation.

The mass media in Cyprus refers to mass media outlets based on the island of Cyprus, including both the Republic of Cyprus (RoC) and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). Television, magazines, and newspapers are all operated by both state-owned and for-profit corporations which depend on advertising, subscription, and other sales-related revenues.

The mass media in North Macedonia refers to mass media outlets based in North Macedonia. Television, magazines, and newspapers are all operated by both state-owned and for-profit corporations which depend on advertising, subscription, and other sales-related revenues. The Constitution of North Macedonia guarantees freedom of the press and of expression, yet they are not upheld impartially by the authorities. As a country in transition, North Macedonia's media system is under transformation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mass media in Moldova</span>

The mass media in Moldova refers to mass media outlets based in the Republic of Moldova. Television, magazines, and newspapers are all operated by both state-owned and for-profit corporations which depend on advertising, subscription, and other sales-related revenues. The Constitution of Moldova guarantees freedom of speech. As a country in transition, Moldova's media system is under transformation.

The mass media in Montenegro refers to mass media outlets based in Montenegro. Television, magazines, and newspapers are all operated by both state-owned and for-profit corporations which depend on advertising, subscription, and other sales-related revenues. The Constitution of Montenegro guarantees freedom of speech. As a country in transition, Montenegro's media system is under transformation.

Regulation S-K is a prescribed regulation under the US Securities Act of 1933 that lays out reporting requirements for various SEC filings used by public companies. Companies are also often called issuers, filers or registrants.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mass media in Kosovo</span>

The mass media in Kosovo consists of different kinds of communicative media such as radio, television, newspapers, and internet web sites. Most of the media survive from advertising and subscriptions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Transparency of media ownership in Europe</span>

Transparency of media ownership refers to the public availability of accurate, comprehensive and up-to-date information about media ownership structures. A legal regime guaranteeing transparency of media ownership makes possible for the public as well as for media authorities to find out who effectively owns, controls and influences the media as well as media influence on political parties or state bodies.

Transparency of media ownership refers to the public availability of accurate, comprehensive and up-to-date information about media ownership structures to make possible for media authority and the wider public to ascertain who effectively owns and controls the media. Between 2011 and 2012, following some concerns on opaque activities which accompanied the process of privatisation of the media in Croatia, the government initiated the reform of the law on transparency of media ownership with the aim to avoid the concealment of information on media ownership structure.

Transparency of media ownership refers to the public availability of accurate, comprehensive and up-to-date information about media ownership structures, to make it possible for media authorities and the wider public to ascertain who effectively owns and controls the media. In Romania, transparency of media ownership is addressed directly in the Constitution and is regulated by a media-specific law, namely the Audiovisual Law no. 504, and by national company law. As for constitutional provisions, even if Romania is among the few European countries that addresses the issue of media transparency directly in the Constitution, the focus is on transparency of financial sources and not on ownership. Nonetheless, despite the constitutional provisions on the right to impose an obligation on the media to make public their sources of finance, the Parliament has never enacted the applicable legislation. The Romanian media-specific law requiring the disclosure of media ownership information applies only to the broadcast sector and provides the disclosure to both a public authority, namely the National Audiovisual Council (CNA) and directly to the public. Finally, the national company law contains provisions regulating transparency of media ownership. It applies to all media which are registered companies and foresees the obligation to publish all the most relevant information on companies' ownership in the Trade Register Company. Overall, even though the Romanian legislation in the field of media ownership transparency is fully aligned with the European standards, in practice sufficient information to assess who effectively owns and ultimately controls the media is not always available.

Access to public information and freedom of information (FOI) refer to the right to access information held by public bodies also known as "right to know". Access to public information is considered of fundamental importance for the effective functioning of democratic systems, as it enhances governments' and public officials' accountability, boosting people participation and allowing their informed participation into public life. The fundamental premise of the right to access public information is that the information held by governmental institutions is in principle public and may be concealed only on the basis of legitimate reasons which should be detailed in the law.

Access to public information and freedom of information (FOI) refer to the right to access information held by public bodies also known as "right to know". Access to public information is considered of fundamental importance for the effective functioning of democratic systems, as it enhances governments' and public officials' accountability, boosting people participation and allowing their informed participation into public life. The fundamental premise of the right to access public information is that the information held by governmental institutions is in principle public and may be concealed only on the basis of legitimate reasons which should be detailed in the law.

Access to public information and freedom of information (FOI) refer to the right of access to information held by public bodies also known as "right to know". Access to public information is considered of fundamental importance for the effective functioning of democratic systems, as it enhances governments' and public officials' accountability, boosting people participation and allowing their informed participation into public life. The fundamental premise of the right of access to public information is that the information held by governmental institutions is in principle public and may be concealed only on the basis of legitimate reasons which should be detailed in the law.

Access to public information and freedom of information (FOI) refer to the right of access to information held by public bodies also known as "right to know". Access to public information is considered of fundamental importance for the effective functioning of democratic systems, as it enhances governments' and public officials' accountability, boosting people participation and allowing their informed participation into public life. The fundamental premise of the right of access to public information is that the information held by governmental institutions is in principle public and may be concealed only on the basis of legitimate reasons which should be detailed in the law.

Transparency of media ownership is the public availability of accurate, comprehensive and up-to-date information about media ownership structures. A legal regime guaranteeing transparency of media ownership makes possible for the public as well as for media authorities to find out who effectively owns, controls and influences the media as well as media influence on political parties or state bodies. The disclosure of media ownership can be prescribed by generic regulation or by media-specific provision. Such measures may mandate the disclosure of information on media ownership structures to specific authorities or to the general public.

References

  1. 1 2 3 "Media concentration and media ownership in Bulgaria". www.balcanicaucaso.org. 17 October 2014. Retrieved 5 December 2016.
  2. "Shedding light on media ownership in Bulgaria: 6 necessary steps". Associations of European Journalists – Bulgaria. 10 November 2015. Retrieved 5 December 2016.
  3. Petković, Brankica (2004). "Bulgaria" (PDF). Media Ownership and its Impact on Media Independence and Pluralism. Ljubljana: Peace Institute, Institute for Contemporary Social and Political Studies. p. 94. ISBN   961-6455-26-5.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 "Media ownership in Bulgaria: State of Play and challenges". Center for the Study of Democracy (Policy Brief No. 46). March 2015. Retrieved 5 December 2016.
  5. 1 2 "Bulgaria TMO Consultation". Access-info.org. 2013. Retrieved 5 December 2016.
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 "Transparency of media ownership. The legal framework: Bulgaria". Access-info.org. 2013. Retrieved 5 December 2016.

See also