# CE2004084EN.01018101.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/181 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/181

---

(2004/C 84 E/0221)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0245/04

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(27 January 2004)

Subject:   Impact assessment of OPTA decisions

Subject:

The European Telecoms package is currently being implemented in the Netherlands by means of a new Telecoms law. This new law gives OPTA, the Netherlands Telecoms regulator, greater powers.

In November 2003 the Second Chamber adopted an amendment resulting in ex-ante control of OPT A's decisions. OPTA will be required to carry out an impact assessment of any far-reaching decision, indicating the repercussions of the measure on a firm and setting out the alternatives.

Ex-post control of OPTA already exists in that any firm can challenge an OPTA decision in the courts. Furthermore, OPTA is required to submit its decisions to the other European Telecoms regulators.

| 1. | Does the Commission consider that, given the existing controls on OPTA, the new law imposes an unnecessarily heavy burden, will delay OPTA decisions and restrict its options? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the Commission consider that, given the existing controls on OPTA, the new law imposes an unnecessarily heavy burden, will delay OPTA decisions and restrict its options?

| 2. | Does the Commission believe that such delays will make it more difficult for OPTA to act effectively and therefore be to the advantage of dominant parties by allowing them to exercise a monopoly for longer? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission believe that such delays will make it more difficult for OPTA to act effectively and therefore be to the advantage of dominant parties by allowing them to exercise a monopoly for longer?

| 3. | Does the Commission consider that this provision is in breach of any provisions of the Telecoms package and the objectives of the relevant guidelines that Member States are required to transpose into national law? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Commission consider that this provision is in breach of any provisions of the Telecoms package and the objectives of the relevant guidelines that Member States are required to transpose into national law?

| 4. | If so, what action does the Commission intend to take? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If so, what action does the Commission intend to take?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2004)

(3 March 2004)

As was the case on the occasion of the Commmission's reply to the previous question of the Honourable Member on a closely related subject (P-2753/03 (1)), the Commission has not received notification from the Dutch authorities of legislative measures transposing the new regulatory framework on electronic communications.

1

In addition to the information provided in the response to the above-mentioned written question, on 17 December 2003 the second stage of infringement proceedings under Article 226 of the EC Treaty was launched against the Netherlands, among others, for non-communication of its transposition measures (2). As the Commission has not received notification of the transposition measures from the Dutch authorities, it is not yet possible to determine whether the legislation transposing the new framework in the Netherlands will be in compliance with it, including as regards the discretionary powers of the national regulatory authority (NRA).

2

The Commission will analyse the legislative measures transposing the new framework in the Netherlands once they have been notified and, in the event of non-compliance, may propose the opening of an infringement proceeding. In the case of persisting non-compliance with the Directive's provisions, the Commission might decide to apply to the Court of Justice after issuing a reasoned opinion. As the Honourable Member will recall, the Court has sole competence to rule on the legality or otherwise of a transposition measure.

---

(1)  OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004, p. 755.

1

(2)  IP/03/1750 of 17.12.2003.

2

---