Brussels, 27/11/2008 (Agence Europe) - During the afternoon of Thursday 27 November, it was with relief that the French EU Presidency announced a political agreement on the regulatory framework for electronic communications (Telecom Package). Without the agreement, the package would have had no chance of being adopted by the end of the European Commission and European Parliament legislature, which is essential if a minimum amount of legal certainty is to be achieved for this fast-developing sector within a reasonable timeframe. Luc Chatel, French Secretary of State for Industry and Consumers, takes the view that the French Presidency has not had much margin of manoeuvre for negotiating with member states on a compromise that is acceptable to all, as opinions differed widely on a number of points. The secretary of state thus welcomed the political will of member states that put their national interests to one side and agreed to rally to the compromise prepared by the French Presidency. “In the context of the recovery plan presented yesterday by the European Commission, an agreement on the telecoms package allows a powerful signal to be sent to support our economies in the context of the current crisis”, Mr Chatel stressed. The moment was particularly difficult for the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom which, despite their disagreement over the text proposed, preferred to abstain in order not to block a process where unanimity is required. The Netherlands felt the text went too far concerning powers conferred upon the Commission for adopting solutions, while Sweden and the United Kingdom said the text was, on the contrary, not bold enough. Will the search for a compromise at all costs lead to a diluted regulation lacking in ambition? Commissioner Viviane Reding, responsible for information society and the media, felt that this would be so. Despite the fact that she does recognise the considerable work put in by the French Presidency on this (“You must be a magician - despite three abstentions, you reached agreement”, she told Luc Chatel) and the real progress made on consumer protection, she was unable to conceal her disappointment even before the debate began with regard to the setting in place of a true single telecommunications market and the bringing into operation of the European Telecom Regulator Group (GERT). The commissioner sought to be positive noting that some member states were following closely behind but she said that the Commission was not rallying to the Council's conclusions and would keep its proposal handy for second reading discussions.
Two different visions of the near future of the telecommunications sector came face to face during debates on the proposal for a directive on “better regulation”. Discussions mainly concerned provisions on national regulatory authorities, consolidation of the internal market for electronic communications (Article 7 procedure), strategic planning and the coordination of policies on radio-electric spectrums and the management of radio-frequencies (“framework” directive), the granting of individual rights for the use of radio-frequencies, measures for the harmonisation and use of the radio-electric spectrum (“authorisation” directive) and the functional separation in addition to the remedies available for the NRA (national regulatory authorities) (“access” directive). A number of member states (United Kingdom, Sweden, Ireland) clearly wish to go beyond this and defended the idea of a single market that is open and resolutely European and coordinated by the Commission, as well as more ambitious spectrum management. Others (Netherlands) do not accept the Commission's right of veto for remedies to be applied on national markets and want the national regulatory authorities alone to hold decision-making powers on this. In the centre, there are the other member states that have decided to rally to the French Presidency's compromise, even though the text goes too far in their eyes (Germany, Spain, Bulgaria and Malta) or, on the contrary, those who feel it could be more ambitious for achieving a real single market (Greece, Bulgaria). More specifically, the French Presidency has had to use more than one ruse to find a compromise on a number of particularly sensitive points. Thus, although they are unanimous about the need to create GERT, most member states are opposed to this coming under the scope of Community competence. That is why the agreement reached by the Council on Thursday provides for this to be organised as a private law body despite serious reservation on the part of the Commission, which deplores the fact that the entity has no legal personality. The agreement provides for national regulators to have recourse to functional separation in exceptional circumstances if other measures for introducing more competition fail, and with the possibility for the Commission to impose its veto. Management of the radio-electric spectrum also aroused mistrust among several member states, ill-inclined to delegate power of harmonisation to the Commission on this. The member states keep their prerogatives. The agreement provides for them to be able to continue granting individual rights to use radiofrequencies rather than general authorisation. The Council, moreover, has not introduced new measures of harmonisation for certain aspects of spectrum use or common selection procedure for the granting of rights.
Discussions relating to the “citizens' right” directive (amending the directives on private life and universal service) clearly posed fewer problems, as all member states were unanimous about protecting their citizens more in an environment that is increasingly digitalised and complex while allowing the development and the diffusion of new services and innovative applications. “Consumer protection will be considerably strengthened. (…) This is an eloquent example of a Europe with a human face”, Luc Chatel welcomed. In particular, delegations examined provisions concerning security of data processing and application monitoring. Member states also sought to improve the following aspects: transparency and publication of information for users, easier access for users with disabilities, emergency services and access to 112, base connectivity and quality of services. (I.L./transl.jl)