WRITTEN QUESTION E-2316/01 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission. Changes in telecommunications law in the Netherlands.
Date: 2001-07-31
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European standard, Internet, Internet access provider, Netherlands, cable distribution, national law, technical standard, telecommunications

18.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 93 E/107

This legal framework makes clear that it is for OLAF, and not the official reporting alleged wrongdoing, to
investigate the suspected wrongdoing.

The Commission adopted its Decision 1999/396/EC, ECSC, Euratom of 2 June 1999 concerning the terms
and conditions for internal investigations in relation to the prevention of fraud, corruption and any illegal
activity detrimental to the Communities’
in full accordance with the terms of the Inter-
institutional Agreement of 25 May 1999 between the European Parliament, the Council of the European
Union and the Commission of the European Communities concerning internal
investigations by the
European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF) (4).

interests (3)

This Decision requires members of staff to report evidence of possible wrongdoings and provides explicit
assurances that staff who fulfill that duty in good faith will not suffer inequitable or discriminatory
treatment as a result of having communicated such information.

In specific response to part 1 of the question: if a member of staff requires reasonable time and facilities to
enable him or her to fulfill the duty to provide evidence the Commission provides such time and facilities.
This occurred in the case to which the Honourable Members appear to be referring and the member of
staff concerned was given more than six weeks release from normal duties and was provided with the
facilities and equipment needed for compiling his report.

Article 2 of the June 1999 Decision provides that ‘any official or servant of the Commission who becomes
aware of evidence which gives rise to a presumption of the existence of possible cases of fraud, corruption
or any other illegal activity detrimental to the interests of the Communities, or of serious situations relating
to the discharge of professional duties which may constitute a failure to comply with the obligations of
officials or servants of the Communities liable to result in disciplinary or, in appropriate cases, criminal
proceedings, or a failure to comply with the analogous obligations of the Members of the Commission or
members of the Commission’s staff not subject to the Staff Regulations, shall inform without delay his
Head of Service or Director-General or, if he considers it useful, the Secretary-General of the Commission
or the Office direct’.

further indicates:

It
the
Commission shall transmit without delay to the Office any evidence of which they are aware from which
the existence of irregularities as referred to in the first paragraph may be presumed.’

the Directors-General and the Heads of Service of

‘The Secretary-General,

In response to part 5 of the question: As can be seen from the detail given above, the legislative structure
is very flexible in that those with well-grounded suspicions can transmit them and any supporting
documentation to OLAF directly. Confidentiality about the identity of the reporting official will be
guaranteed on a case by case basis by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and, where relevant, the
Commission.

that officials may have personal anxieties about

The Commission recognises
reporting apparent
irregularities and believes that impartial and confidential advice should consequently be available to all
members of staff about the best means of disclosing possible irregularities safely and legitimately. In its
consultative document on raising concerns about possible wrongdoings (5) the Commission therefore
proposed, among other things, that an advisory function should be established and that it should either be
attached to the Mediation service or that a new facility should be created for this purpose. Use of such an
advisory function would be very accessible but not in any sense compulsory.

(1) OJ L 136, 31.5.1999, p. 20.
(2) OJ L 136, 31.5.1999, p. 1 and 8.
(3) OJ L 149, 16.6.1999.
(4) OJ L 136, 31.5.1999, p. 15.
(5) SEC(2000) 2078/6.

(2002/C 93 E/125)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2316/01

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

Subject: Changes in telecommunications law in the Netherlands

(31 July 2001)

The Netherlands government has forwarded draft legislation to the Council of State to amend the
Telecommunications law and the Law on the independent postal and telecommunications authority
(OPTA) in connection with clarifying and extending the regulations on access to broadcasting networks.

C 93 E/108

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2002

This proposal is at variance with the review of the Telecom package being conducted by the Council and
Parliament and gives the OPTA the possibility of defining internet markets at Member State level. The
Netherlands government is also threatening to regulate the market for interactive television services,
although this market is still being developed.

1.

Is the Commission aware of this proposed legislation?

If so, what is the Commission’s opinion of this legislative proposal (including defining internet

2.
markets and regulating television services) within the framework of the review package?

Does the Commission consider that this proposal for legislation should be notified within the

3.
framework of the Transparency directive (98/48/EC (1))?

(1) OJ L 217, 5.8.1998, p. 18.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(3 October 2001)

The Commission is aware of draft legislation being considered in Netherlands covering the issue of access
to cable television (TV) networks. According to its information, the envisaged legislation will cover access
to cable networks for broadcasting transmission and for Internet access purposes.

Referring to the question of the Honourable Member about whether the Commission considers that the
proposed draft regulation should be notified under Directive 98/48/EC of the Parliament and of the
Council of 20 July 1998 amending Directive 98/34/EC laying down a procedure for the provision of
information in the field of technical standards and regulations (1)
laying down a procedure for the
provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations, Article 1 of Directive 98/48/EC
stipulates that the transparency directive does not apply to radio and television broadcasting services nor
to rules relating to matters that have been harmonised by Community legislation in the field of
telecommunications services. The current Community regulatory framework in telecommunications does
not establish rules for providers of cable network infrastructure for Internet access purposes and, therefore,
measures envisaged at national
level for this type of access are subject to the transparency Directive
98/48/EC and should be notified to the Commission. The Commission will assess the proposed measures
for its compatibility with Community law.

The envisaged Dutch draft legislation appears to take account of the coming changes in the Community
regulatory framework. The new regulatory framework proposed by the Commission includes in its scope
all type of electronic communication networks and services including those provided by cable networks.
Moreover, the proposed new regulatory approach redefines the concept of significant market power in a
dynamic way, empowering national regulatory authorities (NRAs) to impose, where justified by market
analysis, defined obligations on undertakings deemed to have significant market power in a relevant
market. The Commission will produce Guidelines to assist national regulatory authorities in defining
markets and assessing the level of competition. Under Article 14 of the Framework Directive as proposed
by the Commission, the Commission will also adopt a Decision, on a regular basis, listing those relevant
markets whose characteristics may be such as to justify ex ante regulatory intervention. NRAs may not
impose such obligations in markets not identified in the Decision without Commission agreement. It will
require NRAs to assess the extent of competition in a given market in accordance with the Guidelines, and
only impose or maintain obligations where competition is not effective. Otherwise obligations must be
removed. The proposed new regulatory framework is still under co-decision, and the precise procedures
are subject to discussion in the Parliament and Council. The new Community regulatory framework will
not be applied until 2003, and therefore it would be premature for the Commission to make a full
the envisaged Dutch legislation with the proposed Community
assessment of
regulatory framework.

the compatibility of

(1) OJ L 217, 5.8.1998.