WRITTEN QUESTION P-4158/00 by W. G. van Velzen (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Discrimination in the conclusion of mobile telephone subscriptions.
Date: 2001-01-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Belgium, commercial contract, freedom to provide services, geographical mobility, radio telecommunications, residence

14.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 40 E/3

With regard to the second question, the answer depends on how the term (cid:145)non-tariff barrier(cid:146) is defined.
Such clear non-tariff barriers as quantitative restrictions or import levies are inconsistent both with the
WTO obligations of the Community and with the terms of the Europe Agreements and Association
Agreements, as well as with the CU with Turkey. On the other hand, sanitary or phytosanitary standards
are frequently perceived as non-tariff barriers, but they are merely measures to protect human, plant or
animal life or health, and as such are fully compatible with the bilateral and multilateral obligations of the
Community. Such measures are not discriminatory as they apply equally to domestic production for the
internal Community market. Any effect on candidate country exports will of course disappear as soon as
they conform to Community standards.

With regard to technical standards, certification of conformity with Community standards may be
perceived as a non-tariff barrier, or at least as hindering the free flow of goods. In this respect, the
Community is in the process of negotiating with the candidates Protocols to the EAs on Conformity
Assessment (PECAs). The PECA is a mutual recognition agreement in which the mutual recognition is
based on the Community acquis. The PECA provides the opportunity to extend certain benefits of the
Internal Market in certain sectors already aligned with the Community technical legislation. PECAs are
based on progress made by candidate countries in implementing the acquis communautaire: as soon as the
national legislation and practice of the applicant country in a given sector is aligned with those of the
Community, manufacturers may have their products certified either in the country of origin or of
destination, on the basis of the same standards, technical requirements and procedures.

PECAs have been signed so far with Hungary and the Czech Republic, and a (cid:145)framework(cid:146) agreement has
been signed with Latvia. Negotiations are ongoing with Lithuania, Estonia, Slovakia and Slovenia.

(2002/C 40 E/003)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-4158/00

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

(9 January 2001)

Subject: Discrimination in the conclusion of mobile telephone subscriptions

People, such as Members of the European Parliament, who work a few days a week in EU Member States
other than the country in which they live, are unable to take out a subscription for a mobile telephone in
some EU Member States, Belgium for instance, because they do not have a Belgian identity card or lease.

Does the Commission not agree that this is an infringement of the free movement of persons, goods

1.
and services enshrined in the EU Treaty?

2.
Does the Commission not consider that any proof of identity with an indication of an address and
bank or giro account in an EU Member State should be sufficient to allow a mobile telephone operator to
conclude a contract?

3. What measures will the Commission take to stop this abuse and thus promote full freedom of
movement in the EU in this sphere?

4.
There is also one mobile operator in Belgium that first demands a guarantee and then does not allow
customers to make calls with the EU and not just in Belgium until after three monthly bills have been paid:

(a) does the Commission consider that a mobile operator can be justified in imposing restrictions on
customers with standard subscriptions with regard to mobile calls within the EU? If not, on what
Treaty provisions or directives does the Commission base its opinion?

(b) what measures can the Commission take to remove restrictions of this kind?

C 40 E/4

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.2.2002

Supplementary answer
given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(28 September 2001)

The Commission is aware that citizens from other Member States who are not officially resident in
Belgium are facing some problems when seeking to take out a mobile telephone subscription when they
do not hold a Belgian Identity card or have not signed a lease for property in Belgium. The Commission
has investigated this matter and has obtained the following information. The telecommunications operators
concerned justify these requirements by the need to prevent fraud (which they consider to be widely
spread in this sector) and by the need to have some mechanism in order to guarantee the proper payment
of invoices by clients who do not reside in Belgium.

One Belgian operator requires the applicant for a mobile telephone subscription to provide details of either
a Belgian identity card or a valid credit card in addition to a copy of that person(cid:146)s gas, electricity or water
bill as proof that the applicant resides in Belgium, even though the applicant is not officially registered
there as a resident. This operator also offers pre-paid cards, which can be used in different Member States,
depending on the type of card. The price per minute of pre-paid cards is higher than the price per minute
offered by the company to holders of a subscription with them. In general, although the price for calls for
pre-paid cards is higher, there is normally no subscription fee to be paid.

The other two Belgian operators on the market apply a different policy. One requires proof of an address
in Belgium or a credit card account. The clients of that operator also have the possibility of being invoiced
in their country of permanent residence, albeit with associated additional international transaction costs.
Furthermore, the company offers international roaming to its clients and a service of pre-paid cards
available to all irrespective of their country of residence. The third operator evaluates the risks of every
subscription request on the basis of a scoreboard. The criteria used, amongst others, are reliability,
permanent address or age. Once the applicant has been evaluated according to this system, the company
offers that person different possibilities which may consist of a subscription or may not. Although in this
case there is no formal distinction made between residents and non-residents, the key point would be to
determine whether the absence of a permanent address in Belgium is, in most cases, a decisive factor for
refusing an applicant a subscription. In addition, that operator offers access to international roaming to its
clients on payment of a deposit and different pre-paid card services.

As a general principle, the Commission considers that a fair balance should be found between the right of
consumers within the Community to take out subscriptions in different Member States and the right of
operators to ensure the payment of invoices, the latter being more burdensome and more costly to
operators where the client does not reside in the country where he has taken out the subscription.
Furthermore, a consumer always has the possibility of choosing a different operator depending on his/her
particular situation since it appears, as explained above, that the commercial practices of Belgian operators
vary considerably.

the Commission consider that

the telecommunications operators concerned,

Since the above mentioned practices are not imposed by Belgian Law but derive from the commercial
choices of
there is no
infringement of the free movement principles of the EC Treaty by Belgian Law. However, the Commission
is concerned about the restriction to the free movement of services under Article 49 (ex Article 59) of the
EC Treaty, which such private practice may represent. On a provision of
the EC Treaty similarly
mandatory in nature, the Court of justice recalled in a recent decision (1) that the abolition, as between
Member States, of obstacles to freedom of movement for persons would be compromised if the abolition
of Member State barriers could be neutralised by obstacles resulting from the exercise of their legal
autonomy by associations or organisations not governed by public law. The Court therefore recalled that
such a mandatory principle applied equally to all agreements including to contracts between individuals.
As a consequence, contractual arrangements, such as the requirement of residence, proposed to mobile
communications users which do not respect the principle of free movement of services of Article 49 of the
EC Treaty would be considered nul and void.

The Commission also recalls that pursuant
to the Parliament and Council Directive 98/10/EC of
26 February 1998 on the application of open network provision (ONP) to voice telephony and on
universal service for telecommunications in a competitive environment (2), mobile public telephone service
providers are required to publish adequate and up-to-date information for consumers on their standard
terms and conditions with regard to their services (Article 11.1).

14.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 40 E/5

The Commission considers that proof of identity with an indication of a bank, giro account, or credit card
number could normally be sufficient for the operators concerned, a possibility which is being offered by at
least one of the operators active on the Belgian market. Finally, it should be noted that complaints from
individuals regarding their relations with Belgian telecommunication operators can be submitted to the
Belgian Ombudsman for telecommunications matters ((cid:145)service de mØdiation des tØlØcommunications(cid:146)) who
is competent to treat them.

(1) See Roman Angonese v. Cassa di Risparmio di Bolzano SpA, Decision of 6 June 2000, case C-281/98,

paragraphs 32 to 36.
(2) OJ L 101, 1.4.1998.

(2002/C 40 E/004)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4159/00

by Wolfgang Ilgenfritz (NI) to the Commission

(16 January 2001)

Subject: BSE crisis

In its 2001 budget, the Union has allocated € 65,5 million for BSE testing and a further € 6 billion to
support beef farmers. It is already known that these amounts will certainly not be enough, as the cost of
the BSE crisis in Europe is rather higher than was assumed.

Will the Commission therefore state:

1. Whether it will take steps to ensure that Parliament and the Council adopt a supplementary budget

making additional funds available to deal with the BSE crisis?

2.

If so, what amount will it propose?

3. Whether estimates or more accurate calculations of the expected cost of dealing with the BSE crisis in

Europe in 2001 and subsequent years are already available?

4. Whether estimates or more accurate forecasts already exist as to the categories of people or interest
groups in Europe that will suffer most as a result of the BSE crisis and will therefore need additional
assistance from the Member States and the European Union?

5. Whether any definite ideas have been formulated (in negotiations or talks) on how the funds made
available by the Union to deal with the BSE crisis are to be divided out amongst the Member States
and as to the proportion of the cost which the various Member States will have to bear themselves?

6.

In what proportions the budget appropriations available now, and to be made available in future
(supplementary budget), are to be allocated to the affected groups?

(a) How much of the total amount are the affected cattle farmers to receive?

(b) How much of the total amount are the affected feed manufacturers to receive?

(c) How much of the total amount are other producers, such as in the beef-processing sector (meat-

processing plants, sausage factories, slaughterhouses, etc.) to receive?

(d) How much of the total amount are other affected groups to be paid?

7. Whether any ideas have been formulated or decisions taken as to when and in what form the

payments are to be made to the groups that have suffered losses?

Will the Commission take steps to ensure that particular categories such as farms, slaughterhouses, beef-
processing firms, feed manufacturers, etc., who have been particularly hard hit by the BSE crisis and have
ended up in this situation through no fault of their own, receive emergency assistance so as to prevent
them going out of business (bankruptcy owing to lengthy closure)? An emergency assistance fund ought to
be set up for this purpose.