Amended proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on universal services and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (COM(2001) 503 final — 2000/0183(COD)) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2001-11-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: consumer protection, new technology, telecommunications, telephone charges, transmission network

C 332 E/292

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.11.2001

Amended proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on universal
services and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (1)

(2001/C 332 E/15)

(Text with EEA relevance)

COM(2001) 503 final (cid:151) 2000/0183(COD)

(Submitted by the Commission pursuant to Article 250(2) of the EC Treaty on 17 September 2001)

1. BACKGROUND

3. COMMENTARY ON THE OPINION OF THE PARLIAMENT

services and users’

In July 2000 the Commission submitted the proposal for a
the European Parliament and the Council on
Directive of
universal
relating to electronic
communications networks and services COM(2000) 392 (cid:151)
C5-0429/2000 (cid:151) 2000/0183(COD)
for adoption by the
co-decision procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty
establishing the European Community.

rights

3.1. Summary of the position of the Commission

The Commission is able to support a large majority of the
amendments voted by the Parliament, either in full,
in part
or in principle. Many of the proposed amendments strengthen
or clarify the Commission’s original proposal.

The Economic and Social Committee delivered its opinion on
1 March 2001 (2).

3.2. Amendments adopted by the European Parliament at

its first reading

The Committee of
14 December 2000 (3).

the Regions delivered its opinion on

At first reading the European Parliament adopted a total of 65
amendments to the Commission’s original proposal.

Amendments of the European Parliament

On 12 June 2001, the European Parliament adopted a series of
amendments at its first reading.

This amended proposal sets out the Commission’s opinion,
the EC Treaty, on the
pursuant
amendments proposed in the Parliament’s opinion adopted
on 12 June 2001.

to Article 250(2) of

2. AIM OF THE COMMISSION PROPOSAL

for

The universal service and users’ rights directive aims to ensure
the provision of universal service for public telephony services
in an environment of greater overall competitivity, with
provisions
financing the cost of providing universal
service in the most competitively neutral manner. It also estab-
lishes rights of users and consumers of electronic communi-
cations services, with corresponding obligations on under-
takings. It aims to ensure interoperability of digital consumer
television equipment and to ensure the provision of certain
mandatory services,
recognises
Member States’ rights to designate specified radio and television
broadcasts as having a (cid:145)must carry(cid:146) status for distribution over
certain networks in order to ensure universal availability of
specified programming. The directive
that
network operators will handle calls to the new European
regional code of (cid:145)3883(cid:146) which has been assigned by the ITU
to the European Telephony Numbering Space.

also ensures

leased lines.

such as

It

(1) OJ C 365 E, 19.12.2000, p. 238.
(2) OJ C 139, 11.5.2001, p. 15.
(3) OJ C 144, 16.5.2001, p. 60.

Of
the 62 amendments proposed by the Legal Affairs
Committee, of which 18 had been incorporated directly from
the opinion of
the Industry, External Trade, Research and
Energy committee through the (cid:145)enhanced Hughes(cid:146) procedure,
60 were carried in plenary. From the 14 amendments tabled
from the plenary, 5 were carried in plenary, for a total of 65
amendments overall proposed by the Parliament at its first
reading.

Amendments of
Commission

the European Parliament accepted by the

amendments

The following amendments were accepted in full, in part or in
principle by the Commission: 2, 4 to 33, 35 to 39, 41, 42, 44
the
to 47, 49, 52, 53, 54, 57, 58, 60 and 70. Many of
Parliament’s
separable
these amendments were
elements. While some parts of
acceptable to the Commission, others were not. Section 3.2.2
below explains the Commission’s position in respect of all
aspects of the amendments that were accepted in part, and
therefore describes both what was and was not accepted by
the Commission.

contained

several

Amendments of the European Parliament not accepted by the
Commission

following amendments were not acceptable

The
to the
Commission: 1, 3, 34, 40, 43, 48, 51, 55, 56, 59, 61, 66,
72 and 73. These are explained in detail in section 3.2.1 below.

27.11.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 332 E/293

3.2.1. Details of amendments not acceptable to the Commission

Amendments 1 and 37 (security issues)

Parliament’s amendments sought to introduce new measures
service directive dealing with security
into the universal
issues,
including network security and risks of breach of
network security, which are already addressed in the Data
Protection Directive,
the proposed amendments were dupli-
cative of the Data Protection Directive. The Commission sees
no need for the same measures in two directives that make up
a coherent package. Moreover,
this could be confusing for
purposes of enforcement in that it might be thought that the
Community institutions were attempting to achieve different
objectives by having the same provisions in two different
directives.

Amendments 3 and 43 (European Telephony Numbering
Space)

the implementation of

the
Amendments 3 and 43 subject
European regional code (cid:145)3883(cid:146) to an evaluation study by the
Commission. A study such as that called for in amendments 3
and 43 was already performed on behalf of the Commission.
This
study concluded that potential demand existed and
endorsed the creation of the European Telephony Numbering
Space (ETNS) with a European regional code. Such code has
now been allocated from the ITU. Commercial use of
the
services
allow European
companies to develop pan-European services using a single
telephone number throughout Europe. The Council has twice
endorsed development of the ETNS. Subjecting the implemen-
tation of the code to a further study would have called into
question the political commitment that already exists.

linked to such a

code will

tories, either in electronic or printed form. Making all directory
services free or subject to a minimal charge would constitute
over-regulation that would stifle competition in the provision
of this service.

Amendment 48 (access to conditional access services)

The Parliament’s amendment 48 proposed that broadcasters
should have access to conditional access services and associated
facilities where necessary for the public reception of specified
broadcasts and to ensure that
those broadcasts are easily
accessible and prominently displayed on navigators and elec-
tronic programming guides. This amendment contains two
parts, both of which the Commission rejected, for separate
reasons. The first part of the amendment relating to access
to conditional access services and associated facilities (CAS) is
the Access and Intercon-
already covered by provisions of
nection Directive under which broadcasters are given access
to CAS on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. The
to ensure due
second part of
the Parliament’s amendment
prominence of broadcasts on navigators
and electronic
programming guides is a content regulation measure. This
part of Parliament’s amendment
therefore addresses issues
that are outside the scope, not just of the universal service
directive, but of the entire regulatory package.

Amendment 51 (periodic review of relevant markets)

This proposed amendment of the Parliament would require
National Regulatory Authorities to conduct an annual review
of leased lines retail controls. The Commission consider this
too prescriptive a time period.

Amendment 34 (consumer contracts)

The Commission considered that amendment 34 of
the
Parliament opinion, which required fair and transparent terms
in consumer contracts with clear and understandable wording,
the existing Community consumer
was a duplication of
protection measures of Directives 97/7/EC and 93/13/EEC.

Amendment 55 (Dispute resolution)

Amendment 55 called for the creation in each Member State of
a national complaints office with (cid:145)approachable(cid:146) procedures.
While the Commission sympathised with the intention of
this amendment,
it considered it as overly prescriptive and
failing to respect the principle of subsidiarity.

Amendment 40 (operator assistance and directory enquiries)

The Parliament’s amendment
required operator assistance
services as well as directory enquiry services to be made
available free of charge or for a minimal charge. Commission
rejected this proposed amendment for two reasons. Operator
assistance and directory services form part of the elements of
universal service that must be made available to all subscribers
on an affordable basis and which are supervised by national
responsible for monitoring universal
regulatory authorities
service.
now
provided by operators on a competitive basis. In addition to
the universal directory, end-users may therefore use other direc-

Secondly,

directory

services

enquiry

are

Amendment 56 (Provisions of Annex I on disconnection)

The provisions of amendment 56 of the Parliament removed
context of
the discretion from Member States
in the
non-payment of bills to require that calls not
incurring a
charge to the subscriber must be able to be completed, e.g.,
incoming calls, during the period prior to complete discon-
nection. The Commission considers it more appropriate to
give Member States
flexibility in implementing measures
related to non-payment. The annex already provides that
disconnection for non-payment should only occur after a
warning. The
flexibility to
annex gives Member States
to complete disconnection in
provide for a period prior
which non-charged calls might
still be allowed and the
Commission considers this sufficient.

C 332 E/294

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.11.2001

Amendment 59 (Deletion of reference to VAT-type recovery
mechanisms)

The Parliament’s amendment proposed to delete paragraph 3
from Annex IV, Part B. This paragraph suggests that Member
States should give due consideration to collecting contributions
via a VAT mechanism on operators and service providers for
transparency and consistency. Financing the costs of universal
service from within the sector using administratively easy and
efficient methods is likely to become more difficult in future.
The Commission considers that an alternative method, such as
a value added type of
the sector, should remain
available as an option. Traditional universal service funds will
become more difficult to operate in future with convergence.

tax for

Amendments 61, 72 and 73 (Annex VI,
Digital Consumer Equipment)

Interoperability of

Parliament’s amendment 61 required a common interface to be
fitted to television sets in the Community to allow consumers
to operate their set with any decoder system. The Commission
agrees with the objective to achieve interoperability but
rejected the proposed amendment as being more prescriptive
than required and covered by the provisions of Paragraph 2 of
Annex VI. Amendment 72 requires all terminals equipped for
the presentation of digital interactive offerings to ensure that
additional services transmitted in clear are available with full
functionality to the consumer and requires compliance with the
MHP standard. The Commission rejected this amendment on
several grounds. The term (cid:145)terminals(cid:146) is inappropriately broad
and could cover telephones and Personal Computers. The term
(cid:145)digital
is both too broad and too vague, while
mandating the MHP standard is not acceptable. The implemen-
tation of MHP should be the subject of voluntary industry
agreement. Commission supports but does not consider it
appropriate to mandate MHP.

interactive(cid:146)

Amendment 66 (Article 7, Special measures for disabled users)

Amendment 66 changed the term (cid:145)telephone services(cid:146) to elec-
tronic communications’ which would have the effect of broa-
dening the scope of universal service for disabled users without
review of the desirability or justification for such a measure.
Commission considered that the measure was disproportionate
at this time.

3.2.2. Amendments proposed by the Parliament accepted in full, in

part or in principle by the Commission

Amendments 2, 24 to 30 (Recital 19 and Article 16, Retail
regulation)

Amendment 2 made two changes to Recital 19 of the directive,
in removing a reference to exclusive rights and adding text that
makes clear that retail controls would only be permitted under
the directive where wholesale regulation would be ineffective.

The Commission accepts the first change in full and the second
in principle to the effect that preference could be given to
wholesale regulation before retail regulation, but some basic
retail controls on SMP provision of
telephone services are
still needed.

requiring NRAs

to the Commission. The

The two proposed amendments of amendment 24 were
first
acceptable only in part
amendment,
leased lines
to review their
markets annually,
the Commission considered as being too
onerous and too artificial. The framework should be flexible
and NRAs should review whenever needed. The second change
was to require NRAs to consult publicly on measures relating
to retail
regulation, which the Commission accepted in
principle.

in different parts of

Parliament’s amendment 25 changed the article into a more
general retail tariff regulation and included measures on the
leased lines. The Commission recognised the
provision of
merit of combining provisions
the
directive that deal with obligations that may be placed on
operators designated as having significant market power but
the particular formulation proposed was not accepted. The
amendment also proposed a link to wholesale regulation of
SMP operators in the Access and Interconnection directive
which the Commission accepted in principle but considered
the formulation needs to avoid combining leased line
that
services and telephone services into a single retail market for
services.

Parliament’s amendment 26 required that NRAs take corrective
action to address justified complaints and to ensure competitive
markets where requirements of users or consumers are not
being met in a national or trans-national market. Commission
agreed that wholesale as well as retail remedies could be
relevant to resolving such problems. However, the process of
NRA intervention should be linked not so much to complaints
but rather to the specific objectives of the regulatory package
as a whole.

the Parliament deleted the (cid:145)tariff(cid:146)

Amendment 27 of
in
reference to (cid:145)retail tariff(cid:146) controls and added (cid:145)where appropriate(cid:146)
before the (cid:145)cost accounting systems used by the undertakings
concerned(cid:146), both of which the Commission accepted as
consistent changes with amendment 26. Amendment 28
similarly deleted (cid:145)tariff(cid:146)
this article
which is consistent with the two earlier amendments. The
to
amendment also linked the cost accounting systems
policies, principles and methodologies determined by NRAs,
which the Commission accepted, while the Commission
rejected the part of
that deleted the
requirement for NRAs to ensure publication of a statement
concerning compliance.

from paragraph 5 of

amendment

the

27.11.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 332 E/295

from retail
Amendment 29 deleted the reference to (cid:145)tariff(cid:146)
controls which the Commission accepted as being in line
with earlier amendments. Amendment 30 of the Parliament
required the publication of details of discount schemes for
The
undertakings with
Commission accepted this amendment
in principle, on the
basis that it would be better to link the obligation to publish
not so much to the cost orientation obligation but rather to the
designation of SMP.

obligations.

orientation

cost

Amendments 4 and 44 (Recital 27 and Article 24, Provision of
additional facilities)

is

beneficial

The Parliament’s proposal adds a sentence noting that
the
development of the facilities of tone dialling and calling line
identification on a pan-European basis is encouraged by the
to consumers. Commission
directive
and
accepted the addition of
the Parliament.
Amendment 44 of the Parliament required Member States to
make additional facilities available, subject to technical feasi-
bility and economic viability, and to facilitate their availability
across frontiers. Commission rejected the first part of
the
amendment but accepted the second which corrects a current
weakness of existing legislation.

the statement of

Amendments 5 and 18 (Recital 32 and Article 11, Quality of
service of designated undertakings)

formal

regulation whenever

Amendment 5 endorsed co-regulation for achieving quality
standards and improved service performance and foresees with-
co-regulation is
drawal of
introduced. The amendment stipulates that any co-regulatory
measures must be based on the same criteria as formal regu-
latory measures. The Commission can only accept in principle
that co-regulation may be an appropriate way of stimulating
enhanced quality standards and improved service performance.
Commission finds the remainder of
the amendment overly
prescriptive. There may be a need to maintain formal regu-
lation even where
applied.
Parliament’s amendment 18 extends coverage of universal
service obligations on quality and monitoring to measures for
disabled users. Commission welcomed this amendment
to
disabled users even though the parameters for such monitoring
will need to be developed.

co-regulatory measures

are

Amendment 6 (Article 1, Aims of the directive)

Amendment 6 suggests minor drafting changes to paragraph 2
of the article and sets out in a new paragraph 3 that the
directive establishes rights of users and consumers,
it
also defines a minimum set of services of a specified quality
for all users and consumers at an affordable price without
distorting competition; the new paragraph also mentions that
the directive lays down objectives in respect of the provision of
leased lines. The
certain mandatory
representing
Commission accepted

such as
amendments

services,
the

that

as

thorough statements of the aims of the directive that were
not reflected in the original proposal.

Amendment 7 (Article 2, Definitions)

Parliament’s amendment adds three new elements to the defi-
nitions of which the Commission accepted two. Changes to the
(cid:145)public telephone network(cid:146) were useful clarifi-
definition of
cations to the original
text proposed. The third proposed
change was the addition of the term (cid:145)associated service(cid:146) and
a definition. Commission considers that the term is not needed
in the directive in that the proposed definition covers certain
operator services that are expected to be subsumed into the
definition of publicly available telephone services in Article 2(e)
of the text. The other aspect of the proposed definition relates
to presentational elements of electronic programming guides;
this is a content regulation issue and therefore is not covered
by the new package nor is a definition needed in the present
directive.

Amendment 8 (Article 3, Availability of universal service)

The amendment adds (cid:145)competitive neutrality(cid:146)
to the list of
principles for implementation of universal service. Commission
finds this terms attractive and appropriate to capture the
essence of
the balance to be struck between financing
universal availability of services in the context of increasingly
competitive markets overall.

Amendment 9 (Article 4, Provision of access at a fixed
location)

Parliament proposed three separate amendments to Article 4 of
the directive in respect of the definition of universal service
obligations. The amendment added (cid:145)effective(cid:146) to Internet access;
requires Member States to take account of prevailing tech-
nologies to determine data rates and prescribes the principle
that Member States shall not determine rates in excess of those
available to the general public. Commission considered that
adding (cid:145)effective(cid:146) to Internet access could create undesirable
confusion and lack of consistency in implementation, so it
rejected the suggested amendment. As to a determination of
what rates should be considered for Internet access as part of
universal service, the correct notion is that of rates that are
actually used by the general public and not (cid:145)rates available to
the general public(cid:146). The Commission rejected a formulation that
was unacceptably broad. However, the requirement for Member
States to take account of prevailing technologies in determining
date rates is a relevant consideration amongst others, but must
be
circumstances. The quality
experienced by a dial-up user will depend on factors that are
outside the control of the network operator or the Internet
the
service provider. This
The
contextual
appreciation
Commission therefore accepts the amendment
in principle
but believes that the latter idea is best reflected in a recital.

consideration forms part of
appropriate.
is

carefully assessed in the

of what

C 332 E/296

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.11.2001

Amendment 10 (Article 6, Public pay phones)

Parliament proposed a drafting change to clarify that Member
States may elect not to impose certain obligations rather than
(cid:145)decide not to apply certain provisions(cid:146). Commission considered
that it was an improvement over the original.

tariffs and
the description of consumers entitled to special
clarified the initially proposed text, both of which the
Commission accepted.

Amendment 11 (Article 7, Special measures for disabled users)

to the

and consumers

Parliament’s proposed amendment would have moved the
rights;
chapter on users
article
amendment also proposed to add a sentence
requiring
Member States
to identify users with special needs after
public consultation. Commission rejected the first part of the
amendment as the article is an integral part of the minimum
set of services defined under the chapter on universal service
where this provision belongs. Commission welcomed the intro-
duction of public consultation procedure for defining needs of
users with special needs.

Amendments 12 and 13 (Article 8, Designation of under-
takings)

to a proposal of

The amendment proposed to subject
the
national regulator the designation of one or more undertakings
to guarantee the provision of universal service. Parliament’s
amendment also eliminated the specific mention of the need
to cover the entire national territory with additional text clar-
ifying that possible division of universal service by coverage
and service would be possible. The Commission did not accept
two amendments. A decision by a Member State
the first
should not depend on receiving a proposal
from the NRA
and the deletion of requirement to cover the whole of the
territory was not
text
compensated by
proposed in the amendment. This latter text was entirely
acceptable
to the Commission. Parliament proposed in
Amendment 13 to add a requirement of public consultation
to the designation procedure for universal service. Commission
welcomed this added transparency to the procedure for desig-
the
nating universal
amendment required that network integrity, service quality
and network continuity be guaranteed. This was acceptable
in principle to the Commission but in a separate article.

service providers. A second part of

additional

the

Amendments 16 and 17 (Article 10, Control of expenditure)

Parliament’s amendment 16 changed the wording dealing with
the supply of additional services which clarified the original
text and which the Commission accepted. Amendment 17 is
a small drafting clarification to the original text which the
Commission accepted.

Amendments 19 and 20 (Article 12, Costing of universal
service)

the

and

Parliament’s amendment 19 strengthened the terms of
the
article by imposing an obligation on NRAs to determine if
and to what extent universal service represents an unfair
burden
change.
Amendment 20 reinforced the provision of the article dealing
with the verification of net cost calculation of universal service
to ensure that NRAs calculate USO transparently and make
these calculations publicly available. Commission accepted
this strengthening.

Commission

accepted

this

Amendments 21 and 22 (Article 13, Financing universal service
obligations)

in a

recital

thought better

Amendment 21 introduced three specific changes to the text,
all of which the Commission accepted albeit the second change
was
as being explanatory.
Parliament’s amendment replaced (cid:145)may(cid:146) with (cid:145)shall(cid:146) in the first
paragraph, making clear that Member States must compensate
where there is an unfair burden; the second change mentioned
lotteries
to the
government for compensation;
lastly, the amendment added
(cid:145)and(cid:146) to (cid:145)or(cid:146) at the end of paragraph 1(a), thus making clear
that Member States may use a combination of financing mech-
anisms compatibly with the directive. Parliament’s amendment
changed the wording slightly of the article to clarify the regu-
latory oversight involved in any financing scheme, which the
Commission accepted as an improvement to the text.

funding sources

additional

available

as

Amendments 14 and 15 (Article 9, Affordability of tariffs)

Parliament’s amendment 14 changed the title of the article to
(cid:145)Affordability of Tariffs(cid:146) which the Commission accepted. This
amendment also prescribed in detail the tariffs to be monitored
and the methodology for monitoring, which the Commission
considered excessively detailed. Amendment 14 also specified
that all sections of the population,
including those on low
incomes or with special social needs, should have access to
and can effectively use
services. Commission
welcomed this addition. Parliament’s amendment 15 modified

telephone

Amendment 23 (Article 15, Review of the scope of universal
service)

Parliament’s amendment specified the factors particularly to be
considered in a review of the scope of universal service, which
the Commission rejected for the reason that
this language
focused on certain conditions and factors which might
pre-judge the basis for reviewing the scope in several years
time. The second part of
in which trans-
parency is assured and the Commission is obliged to report
to the Council and the Parliament following its review was
accepted by the Commission.

the amendment

27.11.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 332 E/297

Amendments 31 to 33 (Article 17, Contracts)

Parliament’s amendment 31 modified the first paragraph of
Article 17 to specify that a minimum set of
informational
elements must appear in the contract (cid:145)before the contract is
concluded(cid:146) which the Commission rejected as being already
covered by the terms of
the article. A second amendment
proposed was to require that prevailing (cid:145)prices and tariffs(cid:146)
must be included in the contract even if
these were to
change, which the Commission accepted. In amendment 32,
Parliament proposed to change (cid:145)users and consumers(cid:146)
to
(cid:145)subscribers of electronic communications services(cid:146) which the
Commission accepted only in part, for the reason that using
(cid:145)subscribers(cid:146) at this point which is prior to the conclusion of
the contract is inaccurate. The Framework Directive defines
subscribers as those having already concluded a contract with
their service providers. Parliament’s amendment 33 changed
(cid:145)users and consumers(cid:146) to (cid:145)subscribers(cid:146)
in paragraph 3 of the
article which the Commission accepted under the reasoning
set out for Amendment 32. The amendment also introduced
the right
to
withdraw from contracts when notified of an intention to
change the terms of their contract. Commission accepted this
proposed amendment with a rewording of the entire paragraph
for reasons of greater clarity.

for consumers to be informed of

their right

Amendments 35 (Article 18, Transparency and publication of
information)

Amendment 35 of the Parliament required NRAs to ensure, in
addition to transparent,
(cid:145)accurate and up-to-date(cid:146) information
on applicable prices and tariffs. Commission considered that
ensuring accurate information on applicable prices and tariffs
would be impracticable for NRAs but accepted that they should
ensure up-to-date information was available. Amendment 35
also required NRAs to publish regular reports on tariffs and to
develop interactive guides for comparing tariffs, both of which
the Commission rejected as excessive regulation.

Amendments 36 and 37 (Article 19, Quality of service)

continued

Parliament’s amendment 36 added (cid:145)only(cid:146)
to the text and
the original proposal, which the
clarified the meaning of
Commission accepted. The Parliament proposed a new article
to create an obligation for Member States to ensure network
integrity and, in the event of a catastrophe or in cases of force
majeure,
the public network.
availability of
to the
Parliament’s amendment also required that access
emergency services from fixed locations be uninterrupted. All
of these amendments were accepted by the Commission subject
to textual
required
network operators and service providers to take measures to
safeguard the security of services and furthermore required that
subscribers be informed whenever there was a risk of breach of
network security, as well as the possible remedies and costs
involved. The Commission rejected these amendments
for
reasons of duplication with the Data Protection Directive.

the amendment

In addition,

revision.

Amendment 38 (Article 20,
digital TV equipment)

Interoperability of consumer

The amendment deleted the second paragraph of the article,
which the Commission accepted, due to a duplication with the
provisions of Article 31 of the directive.

Amendment 39 (Article 21, Operator assistance and directory
enquiry services)

The amendment provides for subscribers’ entries in public
directories to be free of charge which was accepted by the
Commission as this is no change to the current practice for
universal directories.

Amendment 41 and 42 (Article 22, European emergency
number)

The requirement for textphones to be included as one of the
means to access emergency services was accepted by the
Commission in principle but it preferred to use a recital to
explain how this possibility is already covered in the existing
text. Amendment 42 introduced two conditions
to the
requirement to make caller location information available to
i.e.,
emergency services. The Commission accepted the first,
(cid:145)where technically feasible(cid:146) whilst it rejected the second,
i.e.,
(cid:145)where it does not require disproportionate economic effort(cid:146).
The other amendments added excessive detail on implemen-
tation and a reference to the Data Protection, both of which
the Commission rejected.

Amendments 45 and 46 (Article 25, Number portability)

Parliament’s amendment 45 added a provision that the costs to
subscribers of number portability must not discourage them
from using the
facility. The Commission accepted this
amendment with textual adaptation. Amendment 46 created
an obligation for Member States to ensure that users are
informed regularly of
their numbers,
which the Commission accepted in principle, on the basis
that
reasonable measures are appropriate to ensure that
consumers are aware of their rights.

to port

right

their

Amendments 47, 49 and 70 (Article 26, Must carry obli-
gations)

Parliament’s amendments 47, 49 and 70 introduced several
changes to article 26, only a few of which were acceptable
to the Commission. The scope of allowable must carry obli-
gations in the article was reduced to (cid:145)broadcasts in pursuit of a
public service broadcasting remit(cid:146) which does not cover
commercial television channels that fulfil a cultural diversity
criterion. Amendment 47 added (cid:145)or subsequently developed(cid:146)

C 332 E/298

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.11.2001

to networks established for radio and television distribution
which the Commission accepted as it introduced flexibility to
future developments over other networks.
take account of
Amendment 49 clarified the meaning of
the original
proposal by adding (cid:145)subject to period review(cid:146) to substitute for
(cid:145)limited in time(cid:146). Amendment 70 allowed Member States discre-
tionarily to (cid:145)set up a compensation mechanism(cid:146) for network
operators subject to must carry obligations. The Commission
considered that the principle of appropriate compensation, not
a compensation mechanism, should be established and rejected
the amendment. A second part of amendment 70 addressing
the calculation of compensation, provided that compensation
would take account of the (cid:145)net cost(cid:146) [a universal service term]
of the network capacity required and the value of the services
distributed by broadcasters and content providers. Commission
could accept to take account of cost to operators, network
in any deter-
capacity used and value of content provided,
mination of
the
accepted
amendment in part.

compensation and

therefore

Amendment 52 (Article 28, Additional mandatory services)

Parliament’s amendment 52 required that undertakings should
be fully compensated by the Member State for fulfilling obli-
gations, which are not universal service obligations, under this
article. Commission considered that
the scope of possible
measures that could be required under the article was broad;
therefore, it could be inappropriate to stipulate that compen-
sation must be provided, as that might be incompatible with
the Treaty rules on State aids. Commission could at most
accept a statement to this effect in a recital.

Amendments 53 and 54 (Article 29, Consultation with
interested parties)

The amendment 53 requires NRAs to take into account the
views of disabled users when consulting on issues relating to
user and consumer rights. Commission welcomed this addition.
Parliament’s amendment 54 introduced a new article in which

MS are encouraged to develop co-regulatory mechanisms and
mentioned the articles deemed most relevant to this exercise.
Commission accepted the amendment in part and in principle.
It considered that the use of co-regulation would be consistent
with regulatory model, the relevant regulatory principles and
overall regulatory approach. But Commission believed that it
would not be appropriate to pre-judge where co-regulation
could apply and to include such areas explicitly in the
present article. The idea could be acceptable in a recital with
textual adaptation.

Amendments 57 and 58 (Annex II, Introduction)

Commission accepted the amendment that added a sentence to
the annex to underscore the effect of
the provision that
empowers consumers by virtue of being able to make
informed choices. Similarly the Commission accepted the
requirement for Member States to ensure that consumers are
their rights concerning universal services with
informed of
respect to the facilities mentioned in the annex.

Amendment 60 (Annex V, Paragraph 3)

Amendment 60 deleted text that the Commission considered
non-essential to the text and accepted the amendment.

4. CONCLUSION

the Commission accepted a
in part or
in full,

large majority of
Overall
amendments either
in principle. This
reflects a parallelism of thinking between the Parliament and
the Commission. The ability of the Commission to accept most
of the amendments proposed by the European Parliament in its
first reading is also a reflection that the Parliament endorsed
the principles behind the Commission’s original proposal.
Parliament’s and Commission’s views on the major policy
areas addressed by the directive are closely aligned.