WRITTEN QUESTION P-2148/01 by W. G. van Velzen (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Implementation of the third-generation mobile telephony action plan.
Date: 2001-07-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EIB loan, competition policy, regulation of telecommunications, telecommunications industry, telecommunications policy, telephone, transmission network

C 40 E/202

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.2.2002

The publications sold by EUR-OP are specialised and have small print-runs: a top-selling publication will
have sales in the range of 1 000-1 500 copies in English, but usually the number of copies sold is
substantially lower. For most sales agents, the profit generated by the sale of EUR-OP(cid:146)s publications only
represents a fraction of their business.

Hence, the fact that in some Member States only one firm sells Community paper publications is a
consequence of the market conditions rather than the result of any specific marketing policy.

2.

As explained above, it is EUR-OP(cid:146)s policy not to limit the number of its partners.

National Public library subsidy systems and the relevant conditions do not fall within the Commission(cid:146)s
responsibility.

Through EUR-OP, the Institutions supply free of charge all or part of their publications to the
3.
following networks: European Documentation Centres, European Depositary Libraries, Info Points Europe,
European Reference Centres, Rural and Development Centres, Urban Forums, Euro Libraries, Euro Info
Centres. For the United Kingdom, a total of 322 organisations are affiliated to these networks, and
specifically 212 public libraries are part of the Euro Libraries network.

The Commission is not in a position to evaluate how this policy compares to the British Government(cid:146)s
policy regarding the subsidisation of its publications.

Given the above explanations, it is clear that the Commission has not taken an anti-competitive

4.
position pertaining to the sale and distribution of its publications and information services.

(2002/C 40 E/218)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2148/01

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

(10 July 2001)

Subject: Implementation of the third-generation mobile telephony action plan

In connection with the UMTS Communication from the Commission (1) on (cid:145)The Introduction of Third
Generation Mobile Communications in the European Union: State of Play and the Way Forward(cid:146) and
following recent developments in this area, the following questions arise:

(cid:129) In the press much has been written these past few months about the approval given by the German
National Regulatory Authority for the sharing of
infrastructure for UMTS networks. Can the
Commission outline the situation as regards infrastructure sharing in the case of other national
regulatory authoritiesMTEXT in the EU?

(cid:129) In the meantime has the Commission held talks with the European Investment Bank (EIB) about a
competition framework for extending loans to telecom operators and, if so, what form would such a
framework take and what would be the nature and extent of such loans?

(cid:129) Is Commissioner Liikanen prepared, in September or October 2001, to come before the Committee
on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy and provide more detailed information on the
implementation of the 3 G Plan, as referred to in the conclusions of the Stockholm Summit?

(1) COM(2001) 141.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2001)

Following the adoption of the (cid:145)3G Communication(cid:146) (1) in March 2001, the Commission raised the issue of
network infrastructure sharing on several occasions when meeting the Member State administrations and
regulators. The Member States in principle share the Commission(cid:146)s view that network sharing can offer
potential economic benefits as well as facilitating an environmentally friendly implementation of networks.

14.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 40 E/203

When looking at network infrastructure sharing, Member States mainly consider two aspects, namely the
compatibility of different schemes of network sharing with the applicable licensing conditions and their
impact on competition.

As regards licensing conditions, this falls under the responsibility of the Member States. In its exchanges
with Member States, the Commission has stressed the importance of avoiding a fragmented approach to
network sharing rules.

From the exchanges between the Commission and Member States it has become clear that in a number of
Member States, notably in Denmark, Germany, Netherlands and the United Kingdom, the regulators have
looked into the matter and issued guidance as to what degrees of network infrastructure sharing would be
compatible with the licensing conditions. In this context it is also worth noting that new technological
developments may allow sharing of certain parts of
the network equipment while preserving the
independent control of network operations by operators. In other Member States, such as Sweden, the
licensing conditions appear to set out directly the possibilities for network sharing and have been applied.

On competition aspects, no formal rulings have yet been made because competition authorities essentially
look at the impact of network sharing on a case by case basis. In this context, it is important to note that,
as far as the Commission is aware, with the exception of one case in Sweden no concrete sharing
agreement proposals have been submitted to the national authorities so far. Equally, no such agreement
has so far been formally notified to the Commission services dealing with competition aspects.

Requests for loans from telecommunications operators are, as is the case for other European Investment
Bank (EIB) loan projects, submitted to the Commission for an opinion prior to decision by the Bank. In
this context, the Commission is in ongoing discussions with the EIB on an agreed framework for loans to
projects in the telecommunications sector. As regards the nature and scale of loans in this sector, the Bank
granted loans of € 2 126 million in 1999 and € 2 211 million in 2000 to operators of both fixed and
mobile networks in the Community. So far in 2001 the Commission has been consulted on loans in the
sector worth an estimated € 2 000 million, again covering projects for both fixed and mobile networks in
the Community.

The Member of the Commission responsible for Enterprise and Information Society is, as are other
Members of the Commission, willing to exchange views with the Parliamentary committees at their
request. The Commission would be interested in discussing the follow-up of
the above mentioned
Communications with the Parliament(cid:146)s competent committee. September 2001 or October 2001 would
seem to be a suitable time.

(1) Communication on the Introduction of Third Generation Mobile Communications in the European Union: State of

Play and the Way Forward, COM(2001) 141 final.

(2002/C 40 E/219)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2154/01

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Regional fisheries organisations

(18 July 2001)

In his answer to my Written Question E-1378/01 (1), Mr Fischler pointed to the importance of regional
fisheries organisations (RFOs), describing them as a key challenge for the future of the common fisheries
policy, and said that the priority tasks would be for the Community to become more actively involved in
the RFOs, exercising its exclusive powers, and for the recommendations which they adopted to be
transposed into Community law.

Mr Fischler also announced that a unit had been set up to monitor RFOs as a whole (with the exception of
certain organisations covering the north-west Atlantic) and that the Fisheries DG had been reorganised to
enable it to respond more effectively to matters arising and to make for a more effective and coherent
approach to Community involvement and participation in RFOs.