WRITTEN QUESTION E-3250/03 by Ruth Hieronymi (PPE-DE), Christa Prets (PSE),Karin Junker (PSE), Raina Echerer (Verts/ALE)and Maria Sanders-ten Holte (ELDR) to the Commission. Assistance by the European Commission to Member States in encouraging the migration to an open interoperable standard in digital television.
Date: 2003-11-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: State aid, approximation of laws, broadcasting, high-definition television, standardisation, telecommunications policy

C 78 E/502

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

international obligations,

including the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement.
States’
The Commission is conscious that European supplies to the United States Department of Defence of
civilian and military goods may potentially be subject to this provision, if the exemption is not correctly
applied. For that reason, the Commission intends to monitor particularly closely the implementation of
these provisions.

As in the past,
Authorisation Act for Fiscal Year 2004 and will take any action which may be considered appropriate.

the Commission will closely monitor the implementation of

the National Defence

(2004/C 78 E/0523)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3250/03

by Ruth Hieronymi (PPE-DE), Christa Prets (PSE),
Karin Junker (PSE), Raina Echerer (Verts/ALE)
and Maria Sanders-ten Holte (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 November 2003)

Subject: Assistance by the European Commission to Member States in encouraging the migration to an

open interoperable standard in digital television

Mandation is not desirable and should be a means of last resort. In order to avoid mandation we urge the
European Commission to explain how it
intends to help Member States in their obligation under
Article 17(2) of the Framework Directive (Directive 2002/21/EC (1)) to encourage the migration to an open
interoperable standard for digital television, such as MHP.

What can the Commission tell us about the Member States’ encouragement of interoperability less than
nine months before the expiry of the deadline for the implementation of the directive? How far do
Member States live up to the strict obligation of the directive?

Can the Commission give a precise date for the publication of its communication on the steps taken by
Member States to encourage the migration to an open interoperable standard?

The Commission stated on 26 September 2002 in the plenary debate on interoperability in digital
television that it was ‘providing political support for the voluntary application of this standard (MHP) by
the sector.’ What have been the concrete measures taken by the Commission to live up to this
commitment?

What will the Commission do to overcome the legal uncertainty among national regulatory authorities,
broadcasters and viewers that hinders the introduction of digital television? Will it clearly define which
national measures aiming at the introduction of digital television it considers unproblematic as far as the
rules on state aid are concerned?

When will the Commission publish the criteria it will employ in judging interoperability?

At what point after July 2004 will the Commission start preparing the procedure to mandate standards
according to Article 18(3) of the directive in the event that Member States have failed in their obligations?
Starting this procedure would bring pressure to bear on Member States to act by signalling that the last
resort will indeed be resorted to, if all other options fail.

Or will the Commission remain totally inactive until the expiry of the deadline as it stated on numerous
occasions earlier this year risking that mandation will be necessary and ignoring the European Parliament’s
resolution of 26 September 2002?

(1) OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 33.

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/503

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2004)

In its recently adopted Communication on the transition from analogue to digital broadcasting (1),
the Commission sets out the advantages and benefits of digital television. The document is also intended to
provide orientations for Member States as they prepare to fulfil the requirement set out in eEurope 2005:
an information society for all (2), namely to publish, by end 2003, their intentions regarding a possible
switchover. The Communication contributes to enhancing legal certainty through its analysis of how
Community law, including rules on state aid, might affect national switchover plans. Member States are
already aware of the need to notify initiatives that might give cause for concern under state aid rules. The
Commission can confirm that it is already dealing with one notification and a number of complaints in
connection with digital television.

In an earlier Communication on barriers to widespread access to new services and applications of the
information society through open platforms (3), the Commission set out its vision of a multi-platform
world with digital television (cid:1) cable, satellite and terrestrial (cid:1) being one of the important platforms. This
Communication stressed the need for interoperability and the value of open standards, and pointed out
that Community law provides for access to Application Programme Interfaces (API) technology by third
parties under the new electronic communications framework. It also indicates that a business choice to
migrate to an open second generation API, such as Multi-media Home Platform (MHP), from proprietary
technology would need to be based on a sustainable business plan which takes into account existing
investment and the evolving needs of customers.

In addition, the Commission has issued Mandate 331 inviting the European Standardisation Organisations
to prepare a standardisation workplan in order to support effective implementation of Article 18 of the
Framework Directive (4)
interactive television services) across Member
States’markets. This will provide complementary standards to MHP in support of interoperability and will
‘inter alia’ facilitate migration to MHP.

(on interoperability of digital

The forthcoming review of interoperability of interactive TV services stipulated in Article 18.3 of the
Framework Directive has also stimulated market players. There is now a standardisation process underway
in European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) for the MHEG5 API (5), which offers both high
levels of interoperability with MHP and reduced implementation costs.

These activities are in addition to the other initiatives in support of the interoperability of interactive
television that were launched earlier and listed in the response to oral question H-0449/2002 by Mrs Thors
during question time at Parliament’s June 2002 session (6).

Member States have also declared their support for interoperability and encouraging openness. The
Telecoms Council of 20 November 2003 adopted conclusions on open platforms and in digital television
and third generation mobile communications, inviting the Member States to support the Commission in its
efforts to take forward the standardisation programme and welcomed the Commission’s intention to
undertake a public consultation on the interoperability of interactive digital TV as part of its examination
of the extent to which interoperability and user choice have been achieved for digital television services in
Member States.

Member States do have different ideas on how to achieve interoperability. Those Member States with less
developed digital television markets favour introduction of MHP.
In Member States where there are
substantial deployments of earlier API technologies, it is argued that it would be too costly to replace the
32 million set top boxes already deployed across the Union, and that there are other ways to achieve the
interoperability necessary to support freedom of choice for users. The standardisation mandate referred to
above is leading to further dialogue with industry on ways of achieving service interoperability.

The Commission continues to support the voluntary application of the MHP standard. The Commission
considers implementation of the MHP standard to be the most obvious way to achieve interoperability.
As stated by the Commission in the Parliament’s plenary of 12 December 2001, the Commission will
examine whether interoperability and freedom of choice for users have been adequately achieved in the
Member States. If that is not the case, the Commission can propose making implementation of relevant
European standards mandatory. Regarding criteria for judging interoperability, the Commission will take

C 78 E/504

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

into account the criteria identified in the Framework Directive 2002/21/EC, as well as the principles of
necessity and proportionality. The Commission plans to launch the public consultation in the near future,
and to determine a final position by July 2004, in line with its commitment.

(1) COM(2003) 541 final, sections 2.1.3 and 2.2.1.
(2) COM(2002) 263 final.
(3) COM(2003) 410 final.
(4) Directive 2002/21/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework

for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), OJ L 108, 24.4.2002.

(5) Draft ETSI ES 202 184.
(6) Oral reply, 11.6.2002.

(2004/C 78 E/0524)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3259/03

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 November 2003)

Subject: Unpleasant odours from waste disposal site in Ano Liosia

Not only the local residents but also the municipal authorities of Petroupoli have recently expressed
concern regarding unpleasant odours emanating from the Ano Liosia waste disposal site, affecting the
surrounding area and in particular the municipality of Petroupoli, causing serious public health hazards
and in many ways detracting from the quality of life and development of the locality. The concern felt by
local residents is all the greater because of the uncontrolled disposal at Ano Liosia of effluent from the
Psyttalia and the Metamorfosi treatment plants, while plans are also being considered for the storage of
waste at the Mousama quarry in the immediate vicinity.

Is the Commission aware of the above situation? What action does it intend to take pending the provision
of new sanitary legal waste burial sites (HYTA), with a view to resolving the problem?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 2003)

From the complaints it has received, the Commission has learned of the operation of the landfill site in
Ano Liosia and the problem of the disposal of sewage sludge from the urban waste water treatment plant
in Psittalia.

The operation of the landfill site in Ano Liosia is directly connected with the discharge on this site of
sewage sludge from Psittalia. The Greek authorities have been asked to give the Commission information
on the operating conditions at the site and explain why piles of waste collapsed on 10 March 2003. The
Commission is still
to check for any incompatibility with Community
environmental legislation.

investigating the complaint

Regarding the treatment of sewage sludge from the Psittalia plant, the Commission does not believe the
Greek authorities have taken all necessary measures to ensure that the sludge is reused on the site where it
is produced in order to ensure recovery or disposal without endangering human health or harming the
environment.