WRITTEN QUESTION P-2508/00 by W. G. van Velzen (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Effects of auctioning of UMTS frequencies for mobile phones.
Date: 2000-07-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: award of contract, communications systems, competition law, economic analysis, equal treatment, mobile phone, trade licence

C 113 E/108

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2001

What additional information has the Commission requested?

In particular, has it asked how the Fund contribution is to be shared out in detail among the different
Autonomous Communities?

When did the Spanish Government supply the additional information requested by the Commission?

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(5 October 2000)

The Commission received the regional development plan for the Spanish regions eligible for objective 1 on
29 October 1999 and, following its initial examination, it informed the Spanish authorities on 22 Novem-
ber 1999 that the plan was admissible under the structural fund regulations (1).

However, in order to facilitate processing of the plan and the subsequent negotiations on the objective 1
Community support framework (CSF) for the 2000-2006 period, the Commission requested additional
material from the Spanish authorities on 14 December 1999, including the proposed allocations by region.
In reply, supplementary information was received by the Commission on 31 January 2000.

As for the CSFs concerning other objective 1 regions, and in view of the considerable level of budgetary
resources involved, the appraisal of the very extensive Spanish proposals, in the light of the provisions of
the new Structural funds regulation, required a certain amount of time. The Commission(cid:146)s negotiation
mandate was sent to the Spanish authorities on 18 April 2000. The ensuing negotiations concentrated on
a number of important issues such as coherence in the overall strategic approach for the 2000-2006
including a role for the information society, reduction and integration of pro-
programming period,
grammes at regional level and clear definition of financial management and partnership mechanisms for
the implementation phase.

These negotiations are now concluded and the decision in principle on the new CSF, which addresses these
issues and thus will contribute better to the cohesion process for the Spanish objective 1 regions, was
endorsed by the Commission on 26 July 2000 at the same time as those for Greece and Northern Ireland.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2001/C 113 E/109)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2508/00

by W. G. van Velzen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 July 2000)

Subject: Effects of auctioning of UMTS frequencies for mobile phones

In reply to my written question P-1839/00 (1) to the European Commission, Commissioner Liikanen stated
that the Commission was examining the economic impact of auctions, which depended on a number of
variables.

1. What criteria are being employed by the Commission in checking that new entrants and incumbents
are treated equally, and does this mean in practice that in auctions of licences there must be separate
blocks for new entrants and incumbents?

2. What legal basis is being used by the Commission for such an ex post economic analysis?

18.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 113 E/109

If such an ex post economic analysis shows that the high proceeds from auctions are incompatible
3.
with the provisions of the licences directive and/or other principles of EC law, what further action will be
taken, who will have to be paid back and what will this mean for auctions that have already been held?

in
4. What ex ante measures will the Commission be proposing, taking account of this situation,
connection with the forthcoming revision of telecommunications legislation, in order in future to avoid the
need for ex post action? If none have been provided for in the forthcoming package of measures, what
measures will need to be adopted?

5.
How will the Commission ensure that such an economic examination, which is to be carried out
carefully and will therefore take time, does not hinder the rapidly-growing telecommunications market or
even interfere with competition in a market in which companies that are the first to provide a product
quite definitely have the competitive advantage?

Can the Commission promise that it will actively ensure that special access agreements for the

6.
benefit of third parties are concluded by UMTS licence holders?

7.

(a) Does the Commission agree with the fact that in a number of auctions the national government
is carrying out what, in accordance with Article 11(2) of the licences directive, should be carried out
by the national regulatory authority?

(b) Does the Commission consider that in the case of the Netherlands auction, in which the Dutch state is
both acting as organiser of the auction and, at the same time, is a major shareholder in one of the
undertakings bidding in the auction, neutrality is ensured?

(1) OJ C 89 E, 20.3.2001.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(22 September 2000)

As stated in its answer to the Honourable Member(cid:146)s written question P-1839/00 (1), the Commission
1.
is following very closely the implementation of procedures in the Member States for the licensing of third
generation mobile networks in the light of the applicable principles of Community law, as referred to in
including the non-discrimination
that answer. It is for the Member States to apply those principles,
principle,
in the light of prevailing conditions in their respective markets. Whether there should be
separate lots for new entrants and existing licensed operators is therefore a matter to be determined by
each Member State in the light of the circumstances in its territory.

2.
The Commission will assess the economic impact of the procedures used in the Member States and
its relationship with the development of innovative services and competition, not only in the context of its
ongoing monitoring of the application of Community law but also with a view to developing spectrum
policy in the future.

In the event that any proceedings were brought in the future, the Commission would consider the

3.
measures to be taken on the merits of the cases concerned.

4.
The Commission has verified the Member States(cid:146) licensing regimes in accordance with the provisions
of Commission Directive 90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990 on competition in the markets for telecommunica-
tions services (2) (as amended by Council Directive 1999/59/EC of 17 June 1999 (3)), and has brought a
number of infringement proceedings pursuant to Directive 97/13/EC of the Parliament and of the Council
of 10 April 1997 on a common framework for general authorisations and individual licences in the field
of telecommunications services (4) relating to matters which, while not specific to the licensing of third
generation mobile, are important in ensuring compliance with the Community framework. As regards the
proposals for a new regulatory framework adopted by the Commission on 12 July 2000 (5),
the
Commission considers that the emphasis in the proposed Framework Directive on the co-ordination of

C 113 E/110

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2001

spectrum issues, together with the possibility for the identification of best practices and their application
throughout the Community in the proposed spectrum decision (6), will contribute to safeguarding the
Community interest in this field.

The Commission has been working since before the adoption in 1998 of its proposal for a UMTS
5.
Decision (7) to ensure the timely and co-ordinated introduction of third generation mobile systems in the
Community. Its analysis of the economic impact of third generation mobile licensing procedures will
naturally take account of these priority objectives and should not have any distortive effect on competi-
tion.

The Commission will continue to monitor the provisions relating to access for third parties to mobile
fair competition

6.
networks in the Member States with a view to encouraging the development of
throughout the Community.

7.
The Commission draws attention to the fact that, under the regulatory framework, regulatory tasks
may be carried out by bodies other than the separate regulatory agency set up in the Member State
concerned. Accordingly, in the case of the Netherlands it is for the authorities of that Member State to
decide on the division of regulatory tasks as between the bodies designated under national law, while
ensuring that the principle of Community law of the structural separation of such bodies from activities
associated with ownership or control of a telecommunications operator is complied with. The Commi-
ssion, for its part, has no reason to believe that that principle has not been respected in the Netherlands.

(1) OJ C 89 E, 20.3.2001.
(2) OJ L 192, 24.7.1990.
(3) OJ L 162, 26.6.1999.
(4) OJ L 117, 7.5.1997.
(5) COM(2000) 407 final.
(6) COM(2000) 393 final.
(7) Decision 128/1999/EC of

the Council of 14 December 1998 on the co-ordinated
introduction of a third-generation mobile and wireless communications system (UMTS) in the Community (OJ L 17,
22.1.1999).

the Parliament and of

(2001/C 113 E/110)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2509/00

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(2 August 2000)

Subject: Spanish and Italian wine in Calais

Would the Commission regard the import of duty-paid beers and wines from France to the UK as a serious
problem for the single market if it affected Member States other than France and the UK?

Is the Commission aware that the proportion of Italian and Spanish wines sold to UK shoppers in France is
around half the proportion of UK domestic sales of wine from those countries?

Would the Commission agree with UK brewing industry estimates that Spain is losing approximately
7 million litres of wine sales per year as a result of duty-paid imports from Calais to Dover and Italy over
10 million litres per year?

Will the Commission be reviewing these facts as part of the research project into excise duty differentials
which will be completed by external consultants at the beginning of next year?