WRITTEN QUESTION E-1643/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Abrupt imposition of implausibly explained charges by Netherlands KPN telephone company for voice-mail reception.
Date: 2001-06-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Netherlands, consumer protection, infringement of EU law, regulation of telecommunications, telecommunications industry, telephone charges

C 40 E/68

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.2.2002

3. With regard to taxation, the Commission considers, as it states in its Communication on the
European Union(cid:146)s oil supply, that the temptation to cushion oil price rises by reducing tax on petroleum
products is to be discouraged. Such an approach would be contrary to the Community(cid:146)s environmental
objectives, linked in particular to the Kyoto Protocol, and would amount to transferring tax revenue to the
producer countries.

4. and 5.
The problem of price volatility is not going to be solved by putting up trade barriers. Measures
to restrict or redirect trade in petroleum products are only conceivable in the framework of the 1974
Agreement on an International Energy Programme, which set up the International Energy Agency. These
procedures are applicable in conditions precisely (and quantitatively) defined by this Agreement,
corresponding to a real shortage situation which is clearly not one in which we find ourselves at the
moment.

Generally speaking, it ought to be clear that the only short-term way to put an end to price volatility
6.
is for OPEC to recognise that stocks have to be built up again and to adopt a production policy which
allows this. More specifically, as regards price disparities between Member States, given the Commission(cid:146)s
verdict that the only explanation for such disparities is oligopolistic behaviour and a lack of competition in
distribution, the solution must lie in a vigorous competition policy. The Commission(cid:146)s Communication on
oil supply gives a full and detailed overview of Commission policy with regard to the oil prices issue and
the Green Paper (cid:145)Towards a European strategy for the security of energy supply(cid:146) (2) outlines a long-term
energy strategy.

(1) COM(2000) 631 final.
(2) COM(2000) 769 final.

(2002/C 40 E/066)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1643/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(12 June 2001)

Subject: Abrupt imposition of implausibly explained charges by Netherlands KPN telephone company for

voice-mail reception

Is the Commission aware that in 1998 KPN, the biggest telephone company in the Netherlands,
1.
offered its subscribers a free voicemail connection, only to announce, at the beginning of May 2001, that it
would be imposing separate charges, as from 10 May, for listening to every incoming voicemail?

Does the Commission consider the short period of notice between announcing and imposing the
2.
increased charges as compatible with Article 17(5) of Telecommunications Directive 98/10/EC (1) of
26 February 1998, which lays down a substantial period of notice?

Does the Commission share the assumption that a better explanation for these charges can be found
3.
by looking at KPN(cid:146)s need to cover its high expenditure on the recent purchase of major interests in
Germany (E-Plus and UMTS frequencies, together costing € 17 billion), as opposed to the cost of providing
voicemail, not least because users very often ring back in response to receiving a voicemail message, with
the result that the telephone company(cid:146)s outgoings and income will tend to balance each other out?

Is the provider of telephone services under an obligation,

4.
in the event of any such increase in
charges, to take active steps (in particular by publishing information about procedures to be followed and
stating a deadline) to provide subscribers in good time with the opportunity to deactivate their voicemail
option so that they will not be forced to incur higher costs as a consequence of retaining their connection?

5.
Is the Commission also aware that the action described in question 1 is being justified by an appeal
to technical innovations which most subscribers will never use, viz. forwarding voice messages to e-mail
and fax?

14.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 40 E/69

Does the Commission consider the circumstances referred to in question 5 as being compatible with
6.
Article 17(4) of Telecommunications Directive 98/10/EC, which stipulates that no payment may be
demanded of subscribers for facilities not required for the service requested?

further action will

in response to this question, both to correct
7. What
infringements of the directive concerned and to prevent any repeat of such practices for the purpose of
increasing charges, or imitation by others?

the Commission take,

(1) OJ L 101, 1.4.1998, p. 24.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 2001)

The Commission is indeed aware that KPN has been offering its subscribers the choice of free voicemail
since 1998, and also that KPN has been imposing charges for listening to incoming voicemail messages
since May 2001.

In his question, the Honourable Member refers to the provisions of Article 17(4) and 17(5) of one of the
directives of the telecommunication legislative framework, Directive 98/10/EC of the Parliament and of the
Council of 26 February 1998 on the application of open network provision (ONP) and on universal
service for telecommunications in a competitive environment (the (cid:145)New Voice Telephony Directive(cid:146)).

The (voicemail) service described is not covered by the scope of the New Voice Telephony Directive.
Article 2, paragraph 3, under b) of this Directive indicates what is included in the term (cid:145)publicly available
telephone services(cid:146) for the purposes of the Directive, setting out a list of services that fall under the scope
of this Directive. The voicemail service, described above, cannot be considered as included in this list. The
article also clearly states that fixed public telephony services do not include value added services provided
over the public telephone network. As a consequence the voicemail service is not regulated by the
European telecommunications framework.

The voicemail service that KPN has offered since 1998 should therefore be classified as a commercial
service, which is fully open to competitive forces. The fact that KPN has set a price on this service could
indicate the opening up of possibilities for other operators to offer competitive prices, which would mean
more choice for the consumer.

Considering the above, the Commission does not see the need, nor does it have the competence on the
basis of the applicable legislative framework, to take action.

(2002/C 40 E/067)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1644/01

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) and Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission

(12 June 2001)

Subject: Habitats Directive and proposed Key Planning Decision for the Wadden Sea

On 19 January 2001, the Netherlands Council of Ministers drew up its draft Key Planning Decision (KPD)
for the Wadden Sea (Third Policy Document). The KPD contains the main outlines of national government
policy for the Wadden Sea. It includes provisions that are directly binding on other authorities. It also
contains an assessment framework based partly on the European Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive,
against which new activities and the expansion of or changes to existing activities in the Wadden Sea must
be evaluated. The KPD encompasses a variety of activities in the Wadden Sea, including military activities
and sea-bed fishery. Sea-bed fishery is regarded by experts as very damaging to the coastal ecosystem. In
the Wadden Sea the mussel beds have disappeared and there has been a steep decline in the eider duck
population.