WRITTEN QUESTION E-3119/00 by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Allocation of UTMS licences in Spain.
Date: 2000-10-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Spain, competence of the Member States, intra-EU trade, mobile phone, restriction on competition, trade licence

C 151 E/70

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

22.5.2001

(2001/C 151 E/081)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3119/00

by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 October 2000)

Subject: Allocation of UTMS licences in Spain

The Spanish government chose to issue UTMS licences by means of a procedure that generated very little
revenue. According to press reports, this procedure was deliberately chosen to provide Spanish businesses
with higher profits and consumers with lower charges.

Would the Commission state:

1. To what extent is the Commission aware of the procedure chosen, and can it influence that choice?

2.

Is the procedure that was followed in Spain compatible with the European competition rules?

3. Does the Commission regard the procedure adopted in Spain as providing covert or overt subsidies,

thus placing other European enterprises at a disadvantage?

4. Will the Commission take action to prevent Member States from providing specific sectors with

subsidies of this kind? If so, by what means?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(22 November 2000)

With respect to the procedures followed by Spain and generally by other Member States for the granting
of third-generation mobile licences, the Commission would like to draw the attention of the Honourable
Member to the fact that neither Decision No 128/1999 (1) nor any of the Community directives related to
mobile services (2) and licensing (3) requires Member States to adopt a specific licensing procedure
(i.e. a comparative selection (cid:129) (cid:145)beauty contest(cid:146) or competitive bidding (cid:129) (cid:145)auction(cid:146)). However,
Member States, when awarding third-generation mobile licences, are required to comply with
the EC Treaty and a number of general principles of Community law which are clearly stated in
these directives. In particular, any spectrum pricing method should take account of the need to favour
the development of innovative services and competition while reflecting the need to ensure the optimal
use of scarce resources. Furthermore, the number of third-generation mobile licences may be limited only
for reasons of demonstrated lack of frequency spectrum and licences should be granted on the basis of
objective, non-discriminatory, detailed and proportionate criteria. Provided that the EC Treaty and these
principles are complied with, there are no grounds for the Commission to intervene or seek to influence
the process by which Member States decide to grant third-generation mobile licences.

The Commission has been following closely the third-generation licensing process in the different
Member States. However, the Commission has not received any complaint as to the alleged violation of
the above-mentioned principles or of the competition rules by the Spanish authorities.

As regards the question of whether the procedure effectively provided subsidies to firms awarded third-
generation mobile licences, it should be noted that Member States can choose which procedure to apply
and that the Commission has no objections to this provided that Article 87 (formerly Article 92) of the
EC Treaty is respected.

In principle, the two procedures for the sale of licences, (cid:145)beauty contest(cid:146) and (cid:145)auction(cid:146), are permitted under
the rules on state aid as long as they are transparent, objective and non-discriminatory. Furthermore, the
practical arrangements and conditions of the procedure selected must be such that no form of aid is
directly or indirectly granted to the buyers or the activity in question.

22.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 151 E/71

The Commission has received a number of complaints alleging that state aid was granted in the framework
of procedures for granting third-generation mobile licences, which it is now looking into.

(1) Decision No 128/1999/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 1998 on the coordinated
introduction of a third-generation mobile and wireless communications system (UMTS) in the Community (OJ L 17,
22.1.1999).

(2) Commission Directive 96/2/EC of 16 January 1996, amending Directive 90/388/EEC with regard to mobile and

personal communications (OJ L 20, 26.1.1996).

(3) Parliament and Council Directive 97/13/EC of 10 April 1997, on a common framework for general authorisations

and individual licences in the field of telecommunication services (OJ L 117, 7.5.1997).

(2001/C 151 E/082)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3124/00

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 October 2000)

Subject: URBAN II

The Guidelines for URBAN II were published last May and the Irish Government must submit proposals
for approval to the Commission by 19 November 2000. However, it has emerged that the government has
decided to alter the tendering and selection process of projects eligible for funding, in particular without
consulting with the local authorities and partners. GBP 3,9 million has been allocated to Ireland under
URBAN II, down from GBP 16,6 million that Ireland received under URBAN I and the Commission(cid:146)s
URBAN II guidelines provide for one project in Ireland.

the Irish Government requested the involvement of

the County
Under URBAN I,
Enterprise Boards and the Area Partnership Companies and invited submissions for funding. However,
the Irish authorities have now indicated that they will not accept any bids from the eligible local
authorities and existing development structures but
through their own consultation and selection
procedure, they will submit their own bid for an Irish Programme to the European Commission.

local authorities,

Does the Commission believe that this altered procedure is in breach of the URBAN II guidelines? Is the
Commission of
threaten the proper
implementation of URBAN II in Ireland? What does the Commission intend to do to solve these problems?

the absence of a proper tendering process will

the view that

Does the Commission not believe that this procedure would breach the principles of partnership as stated
by the new general regulations on the Structural Funds (Council Regulation 1260/1999 (1) laying down
general provisions on the Structural Funds?

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

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(10 November 2000)

Ireland is eligible for a total of € 5 million (1999 prices) to be allocated to one operational programme
under the URBAN II Community initiative during the period 2000-2006. In principle an area is eligible if
it respects at least three of the nine criteria mentioned in the URBAN II guidelines (1) whereby development
strategies shall be selected on the basis of their quality, innovation and demonstrable ability.

According to Article 8 paragraph 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999, laying
down general provisions on the structural funds (2), Community actions shall be drawn up in close
consultation between the Commission and the Member State, together with the authorities and bodies
designated by the Member State within the framework of its national rules and current practices.