WRITTEN QUESTION E-3132/01 by W.G. van Velzen (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Further question concerning discrimination in mobile telephone services.
Date: 2001-11-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: application of EU law, consumer protection, contract, freedom to provide services, guarantee, mobile phone, supplies contract, telecommunications

20.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 147 E/109

weeks, every Member State will undoubtedly have set in motion all procedures designed to provide
maximum security for sensitive cultural sites which could be the target of terrorist attacks, can the
Commission say whether:

1.

the idea of devising special methods and strategies for monitoring and safeguarding the architectural
and cultural heritage has been considered?

2.

the EU Culture Ministers have met in order to promote heritage safeguard initiatives?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2002)

1.

Article 151 (ex Article 128) of the EC Treaty provides that the Community may take action to:

) encourage cultural cooperation between Member States;

) support and supplement Member States’ actions (by providing financial assistance, if necessary) in the

following areas:

) improvement of the knowledge and dissemination of the culture and history of the European

peoples;

) conservation and safeguarding of cultural heritage of European significance;

) non-commercial cultural exchanges;

) artistic and literary creation, including in the audiovisual sector.

The Community therefore has no basis for taking action to safeguard Member States’ heritage other than
the existing programmes and initiatives. It is also important to note that, in accordance with the principle
of subsidiarity, Member States have exclusive responsibility for protection arrangements.

The Commission has not been informed of any meetings of EU Culture Ministers to promote specific

2.
heritage protection measures following the attacks of 11 September 2001.

(2002/C 147 E/115)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3132/01

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

(14 November 2001)

Subject: Further question concerning discrimination in mobile telephone services

The following further questions arise from the reply which Commissioner Bolkestein, on behalf of the
Commission, gave on 28 September 2001 to my priority written question P-4158/00 (1)
(tabled on
20 December 2000). Moreover, in response to publicity concerning this reply, I have received complaints
about similar practices in the United Kingdom and Luxembourg.

1.
In view of the particulars for checking the identity of a customer before the latter takes out a
subscription to a mobile telephone service, as referred to in the reply to question P-4158/00, can the
Commission confirm that it is unreasonable to demand security of, for example, GBP 100 or € 160 or to
demand that the customer produce a tenancy agreement?

Article 10(2) of Directive 98/10 (2) lays down that national regulatory authorities or other competent
2.
bodies according to national legislation may require the alteration of the conditions of contracts between
telephone companies and subscribers in order to protect the rights of users and/or subscribers. I consider
that Belgium, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom have implemented this provision incorrectly. Pursuant

C 147 E/110

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2002

to Article 10(2), these Member States or the relevant competent bodies within them must take steps to
alter the contracts in question in order to protect users and/or subscribers against the imposition of
unreasonable requirements which violate the EC Treaty, such as demanding security or the submission of a
tenancy agreement. What practical measures will the Commission take to put an end to these undesirable
practices, and when will it do so?

3.
I also consider that Article 11(1) of Directive 98/10 has been incorrectly implemented in Belgium,
Luxembourg and the United Kingdom. This article lays down that Member States shall ensure that all
organisations providing fixed and mobile public telephone networks publish adequate and up-to-date
information for consumers on their standard terms and conditions. Moreover, I do not consider that
providers of mobile telephone networks are presenting this information clearly and accurately, as required
by Article 11(1). What will the Commission do to solve this problem, and when will it do it?

4.
I consider that Belgium, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom have failed to comply with their
obligations to avoid discrimination on grounds of nationality and to promote freedom of services, or with
provisions of Directive 98/10, and believe that, having regard to Article 226 of the Treaty, the Commission
ought accordingly to take action. When will the Commission deliver an opinion, stating reasons, in order
to denounce these three Member States’
failures of compliance and possibly initiate infringement
proceedings?

5.
In view of the fact that it took nine months to reply to my previous priority question, when the
deadline for doing so was three weeks, I expect the Commission to assign this question top priority. Can
the Commission comply with the time limit for answering parliamentary questions this time?

(1) OJ C 40 E, 14.2.2002, p. 3.
(2) OJ L 101, 1.4.1998, p. 24.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2002)

In replying to the further questions raised by the Honourable Member, it is important to differentiate
between the actions of the telecommunications operators concerned and those of the national authorities
in fulfilling their obligations under Community law.

The Commission stated in its reply to the Honourable Member’s earlier written question on this subject,
P-4158/2000 (1) that it considers that there is no infringement of the free movement principles of the EC
Treaty in Belgian law. This appears to be the case in Luxembourg and the United Kingdom also. The
conditions cited by the Honourable Member that are required by telecommunications operators to
conclude a commercial contract do not appear to be unreasonable, as long as, bearing in mind the
jurisprudence cited in the above-mentioned reply, they are not found to be a restriction to the free
movement of services under article 49 (ex Article 59) of the EC Treaty,
in which case they would be
considered to be nul and void.

Article 10(2) of Directive 98/10/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 1998 on the
application of open network provision (ONP)
service for
telecommunications in a competitive environement (2), requires Member States to ensure that national
regulatory authorities are empowered to require the alteration of conditions of contracts. According to the
information available to the Commission, this has been correctly transposed in two of the three Member
States involved. Infringement proceedings were opened against Luxembourg on this issue and the national
authorities have communicated amended legislation, which is being examined by the Commission. The
separate issue of whether this power is exercised in any specific case is the responsibility of the national
regulatory authority involved, in accordance with the principles of Community law.

to voice telephony and on universal

20.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 147 E/111

the same Directive, and following infringement
As regards the implementation of Article 11(1) of
proceedings by the Commission against Belgium and Luxembourg, the Commission is informed that the
requirement has been correctly transposed by the Member States concerned, insofar as it exists in national
law and national authorities are empowered to implement it. It notes the view of the Honourable Member
that three Member States have incorrectly implemented the requirements of this Article. Since it is not
clear whether the conditions complained of constitute part of the ‘standard terms and conditions’ to which
Article 11(1) applies, the Commission will raise this matter with the Member States concerned. The
Commission would point out that complaints regarding the failure of telecommunications operators to
fulfil their obligations under Community law, such as the obligation to present certain information clearly
and accurately, should be brought to the attention of the relevant authorities in the Member States
concerned.

For the above reasons, the Commission can find no grounds for taking further action under Article 226
(ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty at this time, bearing in mind that the Commission has already taken the
proceedings necessary to ensure transposition of the provisions of Directive 98/10/EC.

JO C 40 E, 14.2.2002, p. 3.

(1)
(2) OJ L 101, 1.4.1998.

(2002/C 147 E/116)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3135/01

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 November 2001)

Subject: List of ESF and ERDF frauds and irregularities which occurred in Spain during the 1994-1999

period

Pursuant to the 29 June 2000 framework agreement on relations between the European Parliament and
the Commission, would the Commission, in coordination with OLAF, provide a list of the frauds and
irregularities which occurred in Spain during the 1994-1999 programming period in respect of aid
granted under the Structural Funds, specifically the ESF and the ERDF?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2001)

The Commission would emphasise that the Member States are required by Articles 3 and 5 of Commission
Regulation (EC) No 1681/94 of 11 July 1994 concerning irregularities and the recovery of sums wrongly
paid in connection with the financing of structural policies and the organisation of an information system
in this field (1) to report to it on the irregularity cases which have been the subject of initial administrative
or judicial investigations and the procedures initiated following irregularities previously notified, and the
important changes resulting therefrom.

Out of a total of 606 cases notified by Spain in connection with all the Structural Funds since this
Regulation was implemented (3rd quarter 1994) to the end of 2000, only 357 related to the European
Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the European Social Fund (ESF) during the period 1994-1999.

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and Parliament’s Secretariat, a table giving a
breakdown by type of irregularity committed in the relevant Member State during the period in question.

(1) OJ L 178, 12.7.1994.