Brussels, 29/10/2001 (Agence Europe) - Members of the European Parliament's Industry Committee told Rik Daems, acting President of the Telecoms Council, at the beginning of October that if the Council refused to negotiate over the provisions of the draft Council Telecoms Framework-Directive on the consultative and monitoring role of the regulator of European telecoms markets, then all the amendments tabled on first reading by the European Parliament that were not taken up again by the Council in its September common position would be tabled again for the second reading and conciliation would therefore become inevitable.
The draft Directive in question aims to establish a harmonised regulatory framework for networks and electronic communications services throughout the EU, sets principles and objectives for the National Regulatory Authorities (NRA) and a series of tasks for managing rare resources such as radio frequencies or numbers.
Article 6 of the draft Directive sets out a consultation and transparency mechanism that obliges NRAs to organise consultation when they take decisions affecting third parties. It also lays down a procedure giving the Commission the option of requesting that an NRA amend or cancel any measure not justified by the regulatory framework. In September, the Council adopted a common position that, according to the European Commission and the EP's Committee, weakened this measure. Firstly, the Council restricted the scope of application of the transparency provision by withdrawing from the document issues connected with the radiospectrum. Secondly, it replaced the Commission's option of obliging an NRA ex ante to amend or withdraw a measure with the publication of a non-binding "detailed opinion". The European Commission and the MEPs, however, feel that a non-binding opinion would not be effective enough to prevent national decisions being passed that run counter to Community law.
The EP rapporteur, Reino Paasilinna (PES, Finland) called on the Council to help set up a true European internal market in telecommunications and avoid the segmentation that is likely if overall control were to be placed in NRA hands. The telecommunications sector will only have the legal security it requires to be able to make the most of the single market if the European Commission's role is guaranteed, argues Mr Paasilinna. He feels that the common position runs counter to the appeal made at the European Council in Lisbon for the communications market to be fully integrated and liberalised, but said he was prepared to negotiate a compromise solution, adding that if the Council made a gesture over Article 6, he would be flexible about the other amendments. Mr Paasilinna's message was echoed by the members of the other political parties. Concerns were expressed about the impact of the different interpretations of legislation or about potential over-regulation by NRAs, although the idea of setting up a network of NRAs was also put forward as a possible compromise position. Mr Daems said that he believed there was a desire at the Council to reach a compromise and pledged to raise the option of setting up a network of NRAs with his colleagues. But he insisted that the common position defended the principle of subsidiarity in the telecommunications market.