WRITTEN QUESTION P-3364/03 by Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission. New regulatory framework for telecommunications.
Date: 2003-11-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: competition, infringement procedure (EU), national implementing measure, regulation of telecommunications, telecommunications, transmission network

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/805

(2004/C 78 E/0854)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3364/03

by Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 November 2003)

Subject: New regulatory framework for telecommunications

The new regulatory framework for telecommunications consists of the following four directives: 2002/19/
EC (1) on access, 2002/20/EC (2) on authorisation, framework directive 2002/21/EC (3), and 2002/22/EC (4)
on universal service. This framework is to support the development of competition and the resulting
benefits to consumers and to promote the Lisbon objectives. The four directives should have been
incorporated into national law by 24 July 2003 at the latest. The new measures under the directives were
also to have been implemented on the same date.

Did all the Member States meet the deadline of 23 July 2003 for implementing the new regulatory
framework? If not, which Member States did not do so?

In the event that some Member States have not duly complied with their obligations under the new
framework, what measures will the Commission take (cid:1) or what steps has it already taken (cid:1) to ensure that
the regulatory framework is implemented and within what timeframe?

Does the Commission agree that failure to transpose and implement the new regulatory framework
undermines the efforts made to attain the Lisbon objectives?

(1) OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 7.
(2) OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 21.
(3) OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 33.
(4) OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 51.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 2003)

The Honourable Member is correct in surmising that not all Member States met the deadline of 24 July
2003 for transposition of the four Directives constituting the main elements of the new regulatory
framework for electronic communications; that is the Framework Directive 2002/21/EC of the Parliament
and of the Council of 7 March 2002, the Access and Interconnection Directive 2002/19/EC of the
Parliament and of the Council, the Authorisation Directive 2002/20/EC of the Parliament and of the
Council and the Universal Service Directive 2002/22/EC of the Parliament and of the Council.

Consequently, on 6 October 2003 the Commission opened infringement proceedings under Article 226 of
the EC Treaty for failure to notify transposition measures against those Member States which had not done
so by that date. The Member States concerned were Belgium, Germany, Greece, Spain (1), France,
Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Portugal.

On that occasion, the member of the Commission responsible for Information Society and Enterprise
commented (2): ‘Following liberalisation of the European telecommunications markets in 1998, which has
driven growth and innovation and the widespread availability of services to the public, the Commission
now regards it as a priority to encourage timely transposition of the new framework for electronic
communication. In addition to providing the legal predictability and regulatory flexibility necessary for
continued investment in the sector, this will complement the eEurope objective of achieving competitive
local access for internet services over broadband networks as cheaply as possible on a sustainable basis.’
The Commission, therefore, fully agrees with the Honourable Member on the importance of the full,
the
effective and timely implementation of
electronic communications markets and the fulfilment of the Lisbon objectives.

the new regulatory framework for the development of

Another important element of the new regulatory framework for electronic communications is the
so-called ePrivacy Directive (3), the deadline for transposition of which was 31 October 2003. As of that
date, only six Member States had notified transposition measures in relation to that Directive. These were

C 78 E/806

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

Denmark, Spain, Italy, Austria, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Since then, Ireland has also adopted
transposition measures. The Commission will
in
accordance with its normal procedures, against Member States which fail to notify transposition measures
also in relation to the ePrivacy Directive.

therefore be opening infringement proceedings,

However, the Commission remains committed to using all available means to help resolve implementation
problems with the Member States, and does not intend to rely on infringement proceedings alone. In this
regard, the Commission continues to work together with the Member States’ authorities and, in particular,
with the independent national regulatory authorities, with a view to achieving consistent application of the
framework throughout the Union. Such co-operation takes place in the Communications Committee
(COCOM) and the European Regulators Group (ERG) as well as in the Radio Spectrum Committee (RSC)
and the Radio Spectrum Policy Group (RSPG), but also in bilateral meetings with the Member States.

(1) Since that date Spain has adopted transposition measures and the infringement proceedings in respect of that

Member State will therefore be closed upon notification to the Commission of the measures concerned.

(2) See Commission Press Release IP/03/1356 of 8.10.2003.
(3) Directive 2002/58/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal
data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic
communications), OJ L 201, 31.7.2002.

(2004/C 78 E/0855)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3365/03

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 November 2003)

Subject: Regeneration of the Psyrri district

One of the projects being undertaken in Athens with some Community funding with a view to unifying
the archaeological sites is the so-called regeneration of the Psyrri district; it forms part of the old city and
had low buildings, narrow streets and a working-class population pursuing traditional economic activities.
Unfortunately, this regeneration is increasingly displacing the original inhabitants and traditional craftsmen
and leading to the completely uncontrolled development of nightclubs which are a source of great
inconvenience and pollution. Those directly affected have increasingly complained and made represen-
tations to the authorities, but without any result so far, despite the fact that it is generally recognised that
infringements and illegal activities have taken place in the Psyrri district.

Will the Commission say whether it was aware of any planning objectives of this regeneration before
financing the projects, whether
it has monitored their
‘implementation’? How is it possible for Community funds to be used to carry out projects which are
destroying the urban and economic fabric at the very centre of the Greek capital?

it had given its approval and whether

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(12 January 2004)

The integration of the Athens archaeological sites is one of the priorities included in the third Community
Support Framework for Greece and is implemented by way of a series of projects. These projects concern
the renovation of the sites and related cultural activities. As it does not concern projects in the sense of
chapter V (‘major projects’) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down
general provisions on the Structural Funds (1), the national authorities are responsible for the selection of
individual projects. The detailed planning and implementation is a matter for the designated managing
authorities of the relevant programmes, in particular the operational programme ‘Culture’ and the regional
operational programme ‘Attica’.

According to the information currently available to the Commission, no commercial activities of the kind
described in the question of the Honourable Member have been supported under the programmes
concerned.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.