WRITTEN QUESTION E-3816/02 by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission. Abolition of international telephone rates for calls between EU Member States.
Date: 2003-01-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, accession to the European Union, competition law, freedom to provide services, international tariff, liberalisation of the market, regulation of telecommunications, single market, telecommunications industry, telephone charges

C 222 E/112

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

18.9.2003

In reply to my earlier question, the Council stated that the ratification process had begun in all of the
Member States and had already been completed in some of them.

Can the Council give assurances that the Montreal Convention will be able to enter into force by the

1.
end of 2002?

2.

If not, could the Council indicate which states have yet to ratify the Convention?

Reply

(8 May 2003)

As stated in the reply to Written Question E-1800/02, the Council recommended that Member States ratify
the Montreal Convention in accordance with their national constitutional rules. It is planned that the
instruments of ratification (cid:1) of both the Member States and the Community (cid:1) should be deposited in
coordinated fashion.

A majority of Member States have already completed the ratification process; the other Member States
intend to do so in 2003.

(2003/C 222 E/130)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3816/02

by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 January 2003)

Subject: Abolition of international telephone rates for calls between EU Member States

The EU is currently undergoing major changes, with an Intergovernmental Conference planned for 2004
whose main purpose will be the reform of the Treaties and their adaptation to the new circumstances of
an enlarged Union. The aim underlying all the EU’s actions since the Laeken summit has been, apparently,
to bring about deepening and to strengthen the sense of belonging to the EU.

This strategy, which is fully endorsed by the author of the present question, should logically also
encompass, on a proactive basis, measures aimed at having maximum impact on the sense of European
citizenship.

In this connection and in the context of consumer protection,
it appears desirable to re-examine the
existence of international telephone rates for calls between Member States. Such rates no longer seem
justified in a borderless single market, one of whose essential pillars is the free movement of persons,
services and capital.

Does the Commission believe that the indefinite continuation of international telephone rates for calls
between Member States is compatible with the single market?

Can the Commission explain the reasons for the non-abolition of such rates and specify the procedure
required for achievement of the goal of abolition?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 2003)

The liberalisation process of
fundamental element in the construction of the single market.

the telecommunications market was seen since the beginning as a

Since 1 January 1998, the telecommunications market is liberalised in most of the Union, combining
the
competition with a higher degree of harmonisation in order to enjoy to a maximum extent
opportunities offered by a single market.

The existing legislative framework was primarily designed to manage the transition from monopoly to
competition and was, therefore, focused on the creation of a competitive market and the rights of new
entrants.

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222 E/113

As regards international tariffs, this process has brought a 40 % reduction in tariffs charged by the
traditional operator in the 1998-2002 period. Moreover, data provided by the last report on the
Implementation of the Telecommunications Regulatory Package (1) show that the number of operators
using carrier selection and preselection for international calls is 412 and 272 respectively. In some cases,
according to the implementation report, alternative operators offer discounts of up to 65 % ad compared
to incumbents’ tariffs.

The new regulatory framework aims at bringing a higher level of competition in the sector at the benefit
of consumers in terms of tariffs and quality. The new Regulation will enable national regulatory authorities
to analyse and assess the market and to impose appropriate regulation where the market is found not to
be competitive.

Only where there is an absence of effective competition will there be any regulatory obligations. Where
there are existing regulatory obligations they must be withdrawn unless the market is found not to be
competitive.

Regarding this, the difference between local and long-distance calls has already blurred in some Member
States. Likewise, current legislation does not prevent operators from deciding to offer a single tariff for calls
to other Member States, provided that it respects the conditions for a free competition market. However,
there are economic reasons why international and national rates differ from each other, in particular the
difference in the underlying costs and the problems related to tariff unbalances. Even in integrated
economies such as the American telephone operators charge different prices depending on where the call
originates and on the State it terminates. This does not seem to have an impact on the sense of citizenship,
while it ensures that telephone operators are not forced to make losses permanently.

Consequently, the legal framework for the development of a truly single market for telephone calls
between Member States is already in place and it will progressively develop full effects through the
mechanisms provided by the new regime applicable to the telecommunications markets as described
above.

(1) COM(2002) 695 final.

(2003/C 222 E/131)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3819/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 January 2003)

Subject: Evasion of rules on driving hours and rest periods in international road haulage, taking advantage

of the fact that data concerning days off are only checked in the home Member State

Is the Commission aware of the investigation by the Netherlands judicial authorities into the
1.
widespread evasion of the rules on driving hours and rest periods for haulage companies’ drivers which is
made possible because some employers always give their drivers documentation indicating that they have
been free on one or more of the preceding days, so that the data recorded by the tachograph on the days
in question do not have to be shown when a check is made?

2.
Is the Commission aware that these breaches of the rules are encouraged because haulage companies
have an interest in being able to deliver perishable goods such as fruit, vegetables and flowers to distant
destinations quickly, using as few staff as possible, while drivers, some of whom drive for 100 or 120
hours per week for weeks at a time, earn more than they would if they only drove the maximum
permitted number of hours?

3.
Can the Commission confirm that so far there is no comprehensive system for performing the same
amount of effective supervision in international transport as in domestic road haulage, because no checks
are made, or can be made, as to whether an employee of a foreign business was genuinely off work on the
days concerned?

Is the Commission aware of incidents involving haulage companies based in other EU Member States

4.
similar to those which have recently come to light in the Netherlands?