COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
:#*"4: 
\,4 V. •.! •;•('.•;-'-i .i» 
flffl 
•4' COM(94) 48 final - COD 437 
Brussels, 01.03.1994 
OPINION OF THE COMMISSION 
pursuant to Article 189b(2)(d) of the EC Treaty 
on the European Parliament's amendments to the Council's common position 
regarding the proposal for a 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 
on the application of open network provision (ONP) 
to voice telephony 
AMENDING THE PROPOSAL OF THE COMMISSION 
pursuant to Article 189a(2) of the EC Treaty 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 
In view of the fact that on 1 November 1993 the Treaty on European Union came into 
effect, this proposed Directive comes now under the co-decision procedure (Article 189b 
of the EC Treaty). 
Article 189b. 2(d) requests the Commission to express its opinion on the amendments 
proposed by the European Parliament in its second reading. 
The Commission hereby presents its Opinion on the 14 Amendments proposed by the 
European Parliament, including, in accordance with Article 189a (second paragraph) of 
the EC Treaty, a Modified proposal incorporating four of the EP amendments which the 
Commission has accepted 
1. BACKGROUND 
a) The Commission submitted its proposal to the Council on 27 August lc)()2 
[COM(92) 247 final - SYN 437]. 
b) The Economic and Social Committee gave its favourable opinion on 25 November 
1992. 
c) The European Parliament, on the first reading, adopted a favourable Resolution on 
10 March 1993, including 37 amendments to the proposal of the Commission. 
d) In accordance with Article 149.3 of the EEC Treaty, the Commission adopted an 
amended proposal on 7 Mav 1993, incorporating in full or in part 25 of those 
amendments (COM(93) 182). ' 
e) The Council adopted its Common Position on 30 June 1993. 
f) The Commission accepted this Common Position and informed the European 
Parliament of its opinion on 9 July 1993 (SEC(93)1069). 
g) The European Parliament, at the second reading debate on 27 October 1903, 
discussed 14 amendments to the common position, but did not vote. 
h) Following the coming into force of the Treaty on European Union on 1 November 
1993, the Commission confirmed its original proposal to the European Parliament, 
the European Parliament confirmed its opinion in first reading on 2 December 1993, 
the Commission confirmed its Modified Proposal (COM(93)570); the Council 
confirmed its Common Position on 14 December 1993. 
i) The European Parliament voted on the second reading on 19 January 1994, adopting 
a favourable resolution which included 14 amendments to the Common Position. 
2. PURPOSE OF THE DIRECTIVE 
The proposal for a Directive on the application of open network provision to voice 
telephony services has three basic goals: 
to establish the rights of users of voice telephony services; 
to improve access to the public telephone network infrastructure for all users, 
including service providers; 
to enhance Community-wide provision of voice telephony services. 
POSITION OF THE COMMISSION ON THE EP AMENDMENTS 
In considering the amendments proposed by the European Parliament on second reading, 
the Commission can accept those which: 
i) are consistent with the Commission's initial proposal, and/or 
ii) are consistent with the Commission's position on the first reading of the European 
Parliament, and/or 
iii) clarify the text in a useful way. 
1. Amendments accepted by the Commission 
In view of the strength of feeling in the European Parliament, the Commission can accept 
Amendments 5. 6, 8 and 10, arid has incorporated these into its Modified proposal in 
order to allow them to be re-considered by Council. 
The amendments can be divided in two categories: 
a.l) User rights and facilities 
These includes the following two amendments: 
i) Amendment 5, deaiing with compulsory compensation in cases of failure to 
meet the contracted service quality levels. 
ii) Amendment 6, concerning the obligation for prompt and justified 
explanation to users on reasons for refusal of special network access. 
(Note: Amendment 6 also contains a clarification concerning the right of 
telecommunications organizations to request special network access for the 
provision of competitive services, i.e. insertion of the word 'when',). 
a. 2) Transparency 
These includes the following two amendments: 
i) amendment 8, calling for an external audit of the financial accounts of 
telecommunications organizations (TOs). 
ii) Amendment 10, dealing with information availability and submission to the 
Commission in cases of access restriction or denial. 
2. Amendments rejected by the Commission 
Amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13 and 14 are rejected by the 
Commission. 
Amendments linked to comitology procedures are rejected because any changes to 
comitology procedures require an inter-institutional agreement which would cover in a 
horizontal way issues of comitology in the context of Co-decision. 
Specific amendments are discussed in section a) to d) below. 
4 
a) Comitology, including Consultation with the EP 
Amendments 3 (second part), and 12 call for the involvement of the European 
Parliament in the Committee procedure. 
These are rejected for the reasons given above. Moreover, it is considered 
inappropriate to consult the European Parliament on detailed technical changes to the 
Annexes of the Directive. Any significant major changes would be a result of a 
Review of the Directive, and the European Parliament would then be consulted in 
accordance with Article 32 of the Common Position; 
Amendment 14 is also rejected. The Common Position foresees the use of a 
Regulatory Committee type Ilia in limited areas of this Directive. The two areas are: 
i) Technical adjustment (Article 29 of the Common Position) 
This involves updating the Annexes of the Directive to take account 
of new technological developments and changes in market demand. 
ii) Convergence (Article 25 of the Common Position) 
This involves setting harmonised targets and target dates for 
Community-wide provision of facilities. 
Despite its preference for an advisory Committee for acts based on Article 100A, the 
Commission accepted the Common Position on the grounds that a Regulatory 
Committee type Ilia is consistent with the ONP Framework Directive1 and the ONP 
Leased Lines Directive2. 
b) Consultation with interested parties 
Amendments proposed in this area (2, 3, (part), 11 (part) and 13) include 
consultation with representative bodies in the telecommunications sector. These are 
rejected because: 
i) It is important to safeguard the Commission's right of initiative. 
ii) Within ONP there is already a very open and successful consultation 
procedure involving telecommunications organizations, users, consumers, 
manufacturers and service providers. In addition, the Joint Committee on 
Telecommunications3 provides a mechanism for consultation with trade unions. 
c) Effectiveness of national regulatory authorities 
Amendments 1 and 11 address the European Parliament's concern that national 
regulatory authorities (NRAs) should be effective in protecting user rights. 
1 OJNo.L 192, 24.7.90, p. 1. 
2 OJNo.L 165, 19.6.92, p. 27. 
3 OJ No. L 230, 24.8.90, p. 25. 
Part of amendment 1 has already been included in Article 26.1 of the Common 
Position, and other parts in Recital 9. 
NRAs were set up under the 1990 Telecommunications Services Directive4. The 
Commission is in constant dialogue with representatives of the NRAs - in the ONP 
committee and via bilateral meetings - to ensure that ONP legislation is properly 
implemented. Day-to-day application of the legislation has to be judged at a national 
level. 
Any shortcomings in Member States implementation can be addressed under 
standard infringement procedures foreseen in the Treaty. 
Therefore, it is considered inappropriate to include these two amendments in the 
Directive. 
d) Small and medium sized Telecommunications Organisations 
Amendments 7 and 9 (and the associated Amendment 4) are designed to address 
specific interconnection issues related to small and medium sized 
telecommunications organizations. 
The Directive sets up a mechanism by which the NRA can be called in to settle 
disputes about interconnection according to the principle of non-discrimination 
(Article 11 of the Common Position). The Commission considers that this is a better 
approach than addressing detailed interconnection problems in the Directive itself. 
Therefore, these three amendments are considered unnecessary. 
CONCLUSION 
In conclusion, the Commission is of the opinion that European Parliament proposed 
amendments 5, 6, 8 and 10 to the Common Position reinforce the text in the areas of user 
rights and transparency, and add clarity to some points, being fully compatible with the 
goals of the proposed Directive. 
The Modified proposal incorporates these amendments. 
OJNo.L 192,24.7.90, p. 10. 
awonctart proposal for a 
Europe rmLimm tm COUNCIL PIKECPVE 
OBI 
(presented by the Commission in accordance with Article 189a, second paragraph, of the 
EC Treaty) 
Ir 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 
In view of the fact that on 1 November 1993 the Treaty on European Union came into 
effect, this proposed Directive comes now under the co-decision procedure (Article 189b 
of the EC Treaty). 
In accordance with Article 189b. 2(d) of the EC Treaty, the Commission is to deliver an 
Opinion on the amendments proposed by the European Parliament to the Common 
Position of the Council. The Commission has accepted four of the EP amendments, for 
the reasons given in section 1 of the attached Opinion. 
In accordance with Article 189a (second paragraph) of the EC Treaty, the Commission 
hereby presents a Modified proposal incorporating four EP amendments to the Common 
Position of the Council which the Commission has accepted 
t 
Common position of the Council Text amended 
Article 7(1) 
1. National regulatory authorities 
shall ensure that users have a 
contract which specifies the service 
to be provided by a 
telecommunications organization. 
National regulatory authorities may 
require compensation and/or refund 
arrangements to be provided if the 
contracted service quality-levels are 
not met. 1. National regulatory authorities 
shall ensure that users have a 
contract which specifies the service 
to be provided by a 
telecommunications organization. 
National regulatory authorities shall 
require compensation and/or refund 
arrangements to be provided if the 
contracted service quality-levels are 
not met. 
m**&mm»0m*t*mm***litaÈm 
COMAon jpouition •£ ttle Council Text —cnckxi 
Articl« V©<U 
I. National r*Hjulato<ry authorities 
shall ensure that telecoiwmj*\icatio«s 
organizations respond to reasonable 
requests from users other than l, «ational regulatory authorities 
shall ensure that telecommunications 
organizations respond to reasonable 
requests fro» users other than 
a) operators of 
telephony services. public mobile- a) operators of 
telephony services, pubIi e mobi1 e -
b) telecommunications organizations 
providing voice telephony service, b) telecommunications organizations 
when providing voice telephony 
service, 
for access to the fixed public 
telephone network at network 
termination points other than the 
network termination points referred 
to in Annex I. for access to the fixed public 
telephone network at network 
termination points other than the 
network termination points referred 
to in Annex I. 
Where in response to a particular 
request the telecommunications 
organization consider it unreasonable 
to provide the special network access 
requested, it must seek the agreement 
of the national regulatory authority 
to restrict or deny that access. 
Users affected should be granted the 
opportunity to put their case before 
the national regulatory authority 
before a decision is taken. Where in response to a particular 
request the telecommunications 
organization consider it unreasonable 
to provide the special network access 
requested, it must seek the agreement 
of the national regulatory authority 
to restrict or deny that access. 
Users affected should be granted the 
opportunity to put their case before 
the national regulatory authority 
before a decision is taken, and must 
in all cases be given a prompt and 
justified explanation as to why a 
revest fo*S been refused, 
MO 
Common position of the Council Text amended 
Article 13(3a) (new) 
3a. National regulatory authorities 
shall ensure that the financial 
accounts of those telecommunications 
organizations notified in accordance 
with Article 26(3) are audited on an 
annual basis by a qualified 
independent auditor in order to 
ensure compliance with the approved 
cost accounting system. 
tl 
Common position of the Council Text amended 
Article 26(5a) (new) 
5a. National regulatory authorities 
shall keep available and submit to 
the Commission on request details of 
individual cases where access to or 
use of the public telephone network 
or voice telephony service has been 
restricted or denied, including the 
measures taken and their 
justification. 
I2L 
ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(94) 48 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 1015 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-94-055-EN-C 
ISBN 92-77-65570-4 
Offîce for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg 
IS