19.4.93 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities NoC108/45
OpinionontheproposalforaCouncilDirectiveontheMutualRecognitionofLicences
andotherNationalAuthorizations tooperateTelecommunications Services,includingthe
establishmentofaSingleCommunityTelecommunications Licenceandthesettingupofa
CommunityTelecommunications Committee(CTC)(-1)
(93/C108/14)
On21September1992,theCouncildecidedtoconsulttheEconomicandSocialCommittee
underArticle100AoftheTreatyestablishingtheEuropeanEconomicCommunityonthe
abovementioned proposal.
TheSectionforTransportandCommunications ,whichwasresponsibleforpreparingthe
Committee'sworkonthesubject,adopteditsOpinionon12February1993.TheRapporteur
wasDameJocelynBarrow.
Atits303rdPlenarySession(meetingof25February1993),theEconomicandSocial
CommitteeadoptedthefollowingOpinionunanimously .
(iii)ChapterIVprovidesforasimplifiedprocedure
whereverpossibleforrecognitionbyservicecate­
goriesonthebasisofharmonisedconditions;
(iv)ChapterVsetsouttheprocedureforwithdrawal
ormodificationoflicenceswhereappropriate;
(v)ChaptersVIandVIIprovideforthesettingupof
anewcommittee—theCommunityTelecommuni­
cationsCommitteeorCTCtoassisttheCom­
missionintheimplementation oftheabovepro­
ceduresandsetoutotherprovisionsconcerning
confidentiality ofinformation,andimplemen­
tationoftheDirective.1.IntroductoryRemarks
IngeneraltheEconomicandSocialCommitteesupports
theMutualRecognitionProposal,butthisissubjectto
someareasofconcerninthedraftingoftheproposal
assetoutherein.
2.TheMutualRecognitionProposal:Outline
2.1.ThemainpointsoftheMutualRecognition
Proposalare:
(i)ChaptersIandIIestablishtheoverallobjectiveof
theDirective,thatistoprovideaprocedureto
allowforaCommunity-wide provisionofservices
authorisedinoneMemberState.
ChaptersIIIandIVdealwithmutualrecognition
intwoways,firstonacasebycasebasisby
individualapplicationunderChapterIIIandby
servicecategoryunderChapterIV;
(ii)ChapterIIIensurestherighttoapplyformutual
recognitionofallNationalAuthorizations which
fallwithinthescopeoftheproposalandcalls
fortheestablishment bytheMemberStatesof
proceduresfortheapplicationofthisright.
TheprovisionsofthisChapterestablishthepro­
cedureforthemutualrecognitionoflicencesor
otherauthorizations fortheprovisionofservices
issuedbyMemberStates.Thisprocedureconsists
ofthesubmissionoftheapplicationbythetelecom­
municationsoperatorwithsupportinginfor­
mation.Thechapteralsoprovidesforanobjection
procedureavailabletotheNationalRegulatory
Authorities('NRAs');intheeventofanobjection
byaNRAtheprovisionssetouttheconciliation
procedureandsubsequenttothistheprocedure
forthegrantingofthelicenceandnotificationto
theMemberStates;2.2.Itshouldbenotedthattheproposalwillonly
applytonationalauthorizations relatingtothepro­
visionoftelecommunications servicesonpublictele­
communications networks:itwillnotapplytonational
authorizationsfortheprovisionofmobileradioservices
andsatelliteservices.Thesearetobedealtwithsepar­
atelybytheCommission .
3.TheMutualRecognitionProposal:PracticalCon­
siderations
3.1.Assetoutinparagraph2.1above,ChapterIII
oftheProposaldetailstheproceduretobefollowedin
applicationsforlicencesandtheconsiderationofsuch
applications .Thewordingoftheprovisionsisnot
entirelyclearandthe'balancedandefficientprocedure'
whichtheCommission aimstoachievewouldbe
assistedbymoreprecisewording.
3.2.ChapterVIoftheMutualRecognitionProposal
providesfortheestablishmentoftheCTCwhichistobe
madeupofrepresentativesoftheNationalRegulatory
AuthoritiesoftheMemberStates('theNRAs')and (')OJNoC248,25.9.1992,p.4.

NoC108/46 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 19.4.93
chairedbyarepresentativeoftheCommission .The
CommitteenotesthattheproposalforeseestheCTC
inapurelyadvisoryrole,Thismaynotbeappropriate
inallcases.
3.3.Thisraisesanimportantpoint.CouncilDecision
of13July1987('TheCouncilDecision')setsoutthe
Commission'spowerstoestablishcommitteesandthe
powersthatmaybegiventothosecommittees.
TheCommissionhassuggestedthattheCTCwillbe
constitutedinthesametermsasthecommitteeestab­
lishedundertheONPDirective.Forthepurposesof
thisproposal,giveninparticularitsregulatorynature,
itissuggestedthattheCTCshouldbearegulatory
committee,undertheguidelinessetoutintheCouncil
Decision,withinprocedure111(b).
Giventhatnoprovisionismadeundertheproposalto
dealwiththeissueofpublicaccountabilityoftheCTC,
aprocedure111(b)CommitteewouldenabletheCouncil
toreviewthedecisionsoftheCTC,whereappropriate .
AppealtotheEuropeanCourtofJusticeisobviously
opentoaggrievedparties,butthiscanbeacumber­
some,expensiveandtimeconsumingprocess.InDirective91/263/EEContheapproximation of
the.lawsoftheMemberStatesconcerningtelecom­
municationsterminalequipment,includingtherec­
ognitionoftheirconformity (whichisanother'mut­
ualrecognition-type Directive),theDirectivesets
outinsomedetailwhattheessentialrequirements
wereforthatparticularDirective(Article4).For
thesakeofclarity,asimilarexerciseshouldbe
appliedtotheMutualRecognitionProposaland,
indeed,theCommitteebelievesthatabroader
interpretationofessentialrequirementsshouldbe
giventhanthosegivenintheONPDirectiveor
Directive91/263/EEC.
4.2.Article2(1)
4.2.1.Furthertoparagraph4.1above,theCom­
mitteewelcomesthedefinitionsprovidedinArticle2,
andparticularlyinArticle2(1).Itisnotedthatthis
latterdefinitionwillexcludefromtheCTCthoserep­
resentativesofMemberStateswhichhavenotasyet
implementedCouncilDirective90/388/EEConcompe­
titioninthemarketfortelecommunications services
('theServicesDirective')throughtheestablishmentof
aNRA.
4.2.2.Thedefinitionof'nationalauthorization 'con­
tainedinArticle2.2isnotedandinparticularthe
referencetoclasslicences.Thiswillbecommentedon
inparagraph4.8.
4.3.Article5(3)
(i)Thisprovidesthattheimplementation oftheSin­
gleCommunityTelecommunication Licence('The
SCTL')
'shallnotpreventtheMemberStatesfrommaking
theprovisionofservicesunderaSCTLsubject
tonationallegislationnotspecificallyrelatedto
telecommunications services'(emphasisadded).
TheCommitteeisconcernedinparticularaboutthe
wordingemphasizedabove.Itisunderstoodthatthe
aimoftheproposalistokeeptoaminimumthe
groundsunderwhichrestrictionsontherightforservice
providerstooperatecanbeallowedandthatitis
intendedtoapplytoissuesconcerningconsumerprotec­
tion—inparticulardataprotection—andpublicdecen­
cy.Article5.3shouldnotbeusedtodiscriminatein
anywayagainstserviceprovidersfromoutsidethe
particularMemberState.3.4.TheCommitteenotesparagraph7ofthe
RecitalstotheProposaland,inparticular,thatthe
proposaltakesfullaccountoftheprimaryroleofthe
nationalregulatoryauthorities'inaccordancewiththe
principleofsubsidiarity'.Theareaofsubsidiarityisof
particularconcerntoseveraloftheMemberStatesand
theCommitteewelcomestherecognitionofthisconcern
intheprovisionsoftheproposal.
4.TheMutualRecognitionProposal
4.1.Article2
(i)ThisArticlespecifiesfourdefinitionsandthenpro­
videsthatthedefinitionsgivenintheONPDirective
shallapply,whererelevant,totheMutualRecog­
nitionProposal.Asaresultofthis,however,the
presentdraftoftheproposalmayarguablycontain
somegaps.Wheretermsareused,andnotdefined,
theONPDirectivedefinitionsshallapply.
(ii)TheCommitteeforeseessomeproblemswiththis
approach,whichtheCommissionrecognizedin
anothercontextreferredtoinparagraph4.2below.
Theterm'essentialrequirements'isusedinArticle
13,intheExplanatoryMemorandum andinthe
Recitals.AlthoughthisisdefinedinArticle2(6)of
theONPDirective,thedefinitionisinrathergen­
eralterms.4.4.Article7
(i)Article7(2)
Intheinterestsofefficiencyandopenness,theCom­
mitteebelievesthatthisArticleshouldbeamendedto
providethattheobjectingNRAshouldinformthe
authorisingNRAofitsobjectionsatthesametimeas
itinformstheCommission .

19.4.93 OfficialJouinaloftheEuropeanCommunities NoC108/47
empoweredtoconveneaworkinggroupoftwomem­
bersoftheCTCbutthereisnothingtopreventthese
twomembersfromcomingfromtwooftheNRAs
involvedinthisdispute.Thispotentiallyleadstoa
conflictofinterest.(ii)Article7(3)
Itissubmittedthatthisshouldberewordedforthe
sakeofclarityandthefollowingwordingissuggested
sothattheprovisionsshouldnowread:
4Nationalregulatoryauthoritieswhichhaveinfor­
medtheCommissionthattheyintendtoraisean
objectioninaccordancewithparagraph2,and
intendtopursuethatobjection,mustsubmittheir
objectionsinwriting...'.(iii)Further,theneedforpublicaccountability of
thedecisionmakersandforopennessandtransparency
oftheconciliationprocessisstressed.Inparticular,
theCommitteeisconcernedabouttheelectionofthe
membersoftheWorkingGroupinaparticularcase
andtheselectionofexperts.Theneedforindependent
expertsisstressed.
Theconciliatorybodymayinvite'experts'toadviseit.
Itshouldbelefttothemembersofthebodytodecide
whoshouldbeappointedasindependentexpertsto
adviseit.
4.6.Article154.5.Articles9to13
TheCommitteeseesanumberofconcernsaboutthe
proceduressetoutinArticles9to13whicharesetout
below.
4.5.1.Article9
TheCommitteewelcomestheintentionoftheCom­
missionintheseprovisionsbutsubmitsthatArticle9
inparticularneedsmoreattentionregardingprocedural
issues.Initspresentwording,theCommissionmay
assumearegulatoryrolewhich,itisbelieved,isnot
intended.Thisrequiresredraftinginordertoclarify
theprocedure.
4.5.2.Article12(5)
Finally,concerningArticle12,theCommitteeiscon­
cernedthattheapplicationprocedurewillbefinancially
onerousontheapplicantandthiswillbeunfairdisin­
centive.Itissuggestedthatthisshouldbetakeninto
considerationbythisproposalandthepossibilityofthe
implementation ofmeasuresunderCommunitypolicy
concerningsmallandmedium-sizedenterprisesshould
beconsidered .4.6.1.Thisprovidestheprocedureforrecognition
byServiceCategoryandthishaspotentialramifications
forclasslicences.Theselicenceshavebeenintroduced
bysomeMemberStates,notablytheUnitedKingdom,
asameansofderegulatingtelecommunications services.
TheCommitteenotesthattheseMemberStatesare
concernedthattheprovisionsofArticle15couldresult
inre-regulation .Thisisbecauseserviceproducerswho
operateunderregimeswherelicencesarerecognizedby
servicecategoryorthatdonotrequirelicences(e.g.the
Netherlands )wouldnotbeabletotakeadvantageof
themutualrecognitioninotherMemberStatessince
theywouldhavenonationallicencetoshow.This
wouldmean,inpractice,theNRAhavingtosetupa
mechanismtocertifythattheserviceprovidercomplied
withthetermsoftheservicecategoryaspublishedby
theCommission,ineffectreintroducing alicencefor
thatcategoryandhencere-regulatingthenational
regime.4.5.3.Article13(1)
(i)Article13(1)shouldberedraftedsoastoprovide
forinitiationofthesupplementary conditionsunder
Article13bybothpartiesinordertofacilitatetherapid
arrivalatanagreementwherebotharewillingtodo
so.Inaddition,toavoidmisinterpretation ,thewording
ofArticle13(1)shouldberedraftedtoprovidefora
situationwherenoelectionhasbeenmadetofollow
theproceduresetoutinArticle12.
ItisunderstoodthattheArticleisintendedtoprovide
forsuchasituation,but,asdrafted,thisisnotclear.
Inparticular,itwouldappearthattheuseoftheword
'may'intheEnglishtextshouldbe'shall'.Inother
words,theintentionisthattheconciliationprocedure
shallproceedeitherunderArticle12or13andnot
underanyotherprocedurethatmightbeinstigated
betweentheparties.
(ii)Onthefaceoftheproposalatpresent,the'con­
ciliatorybody'referredtoinArticle12wouldbe4.6.2.TheCommissionhasassuredthatthiswasnot
theintentionoftheproposalandthattheprocedures
underArticle15willnotpreventanoperatorcarrying
onanexistingservice.Itsaimistoharmoniselicensing
conditionsandstandardisemutualrecognitionof
licences.ItisrecognizedbytheCommissionthatthis
maynotbenecessaryincertainMemberStateswith
regardtocertaintypesofservices:forexample,value
addedservicesorvoicemessaging,whichcanberecog­
nizedwithoutbeingharmonised .
4.6.3.Theproposalshouldbeamendedtomakeit
absolutelyclearthatthereisnointentiontore-regulate
servicesprovidedunderanyclasslicence.Asregards

NoC108/48 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 19.4.93
serviceswhicharenotcoveredbyanylicence(e.g.
certainservicesintheNetherlands),whereitsisvery
unclearastohowthisshouldbedealtwith,theCom­
missionshouldconsiderthisissueinfurtherdetailto
ensurethatregulationofunregulatedservicesisnota
consequence .4.8.Article22
Thissetsouttheprovisionstoensuresecurityofinfor­
mationundertheproposal.Astheinformationinvolved
intheproceduresundertheMutualRecognitionPro­
posalisparticularlyvulnerableandsensitiveinecon­
omictermsforthepartiesinvolved,itisassumedthat
securityprovisionsequivalenttothoseemployedin
similarcircumstances forinformationgatheredby
DirectorateGeneralIVoftheCommission willbe
employedundertheproposalcurrentlyunderdis­
cussion.
5.Timetable
ItisunderstoodthattheCommissionhopestohavethis
Proposaladoptedinthecourseof1993.TheCommittee
welcomesanearlydeadlineforadoptionofthispro­
posal.4.7.Article16
Concernwasexpressedthatthe'reasonablefee'should
notbesuchthat(forexample)smallandmediumsized
enterprisescannotaffordit.Whatisreasonablefor
somemaybeprohibitiveforothers.
DoneatBrussels,25February1993.
TheChairman
oftheEconomicandSocialCommittee
SusanneTTEMANN
OpiniononthedraftproposalforaCouncilDirectivelayingdownthebasicstandardsfor
theprotectionofthehealthofworkersandthegeneralpublicagainstthedangersarising
fromionizingradiation
(93/C108/15)
On8July1992theCommissiondecidedtoconsulttheEconomicandSocialCommittee,
underArticle31oftheEuratomTreaty,ontheabovementioned draftproposal.
TheSectionforEnergy,NuclearQuestionsandResearch,whichwasresponsibleforpreparing
theCommittee'sworkonthesubject,adopteditsOpinionon11February1993.The
RapporteurwasMrBeale.
Atits303rdPlenarySession(meetingof25February1993)theEconomicandSocial
CommitteeadoptedunnaimouslythefollowingOpinion.
1.Introduction therprovidedthat'thebasicstandardsshallbeworke­
doutbytheCommissionafterithasobtainedtheopin­
ionofagroupofpersonsappointedbytheScientific
andTechnicalCommitteefromamongscientific
experts,andinparticularpublichealthexperts,inthe
MemberStates.TheCommissionshallobtaintheOpin­
ionoftheEconomicandSocialCommitteeonthese
basicstandards'(Article31).1.1.UnderChapterIII(HealthandSafety)ofthe
EuratomTreaty,'basicstandardsshallbelaiddown
withintheCommunityfortheprotectionofthehealth
ofworkersandthegeneralpublicagainstthedangers
arisingfromionizingradiations'(Article30).Itisfur­