WRITTEN QUESTION E-3762/03 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Commission proceedings against Greece for infringing Community legislation in the telecommunications sector.
Date: 2003-12-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Greece, competition law, infringement procedure (EU), regulation of telecommunications, retail price, wholesale price

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/855

Although proposal LIFE02 ENV/IT/000087 passed the selection criteria, its score was insufficiently high,
relative to other proposals to qualify for co-financing. The beneficiary was informed in our letter of
2 September 2002.

The municipality of Firenze did not submit any proposals in 2000 or 2003.

(2004/C 78 E/0908)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3762/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Commission proceedings against Greece for

infringing Community legislation in the tele-

communications sector

In response to a recent question I tabled on the provision of the ADSL service in Greece (E-3072/03 (1)),
the Commissioner responsible stated that ‘Greece has not yet transposed the new Community [regulatory]
framework [for electronic communications]’ and that ‘the Commission has been informed of the slow
progress in the provision of broadband services in Greece’. He also states that the ‘the Commission has
initiated infringement proceedings against Greece for non-communication of the transposition measures.’
As regards the limited margin between wholesale and retail prices for the provision of ADSL lines, he
states that the Commission is following the case closely and will ‘either bring infringement proceedings …
or use its powers under the EC Treaty competition rules’ should the behaviour by OTE prove to be
incompatible with its obligations under Article 82 of the EC Treaty.

Will the Commission say:

1. When did it bring infringement proceedings for non-communication of the transposition measures
into Greek domestic legislation, what deadlines has it given the Greek government and what measures
does it envisage taking should Greece fail to meet these deadlines?

2. When is a decision expected to be taken on the behaviour by OTE regarding the margin between
wholesale and retail prices, and what measures does it intend to take in the event of an infringement
of Community competition legislation?

(1) See page 218.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(3 February 2004)

the Framework Directive (1),

the Universal Service Directive (2),

The Commission opened four infringement proceedings against Greece,

in particular for non-
1.
the Authorisation
transposition of
Directive (3) and the Access Directive (4). In this context, the Commission sent on 6 October 2003 four
Letters of Formal Notice (LFN) to Greece. A deadline of two months was given to Greece to reply to the
LFN until 6 December 2003. Greece has recently replied informing the Commission that a draft law has
already been prepared by the Ministry following a public consultation. Nevertheless, the Commission’s
concerns expressed in the Letters of Formal Notice were not satisfied by the reply of Greece and in view of
the situation the Commission has decided to proceed to the next phase of the infringement proceedings
and send Reasoned Opinions to Greece.

Relevant information on the proceedings was made public by the Commission in a press release on
8 October 2003 and 17 December 2003 (5) as well as the 9th Implementation Report (6) published
recently.

2.
The National Communications and Post Commission (EETT), the Greek Regulator, is in principle
responsible for reviewing the tariffs applied by OTE. In this context, the EETT needs to ensure that price
squeezes are not practised by any party. The Commission has already provided guidance to National
to monitor possible price squeezes
Regulatory Authorities (NRAs)

in its 1998 ‘Access Notice’ (7)

C 78 E/856

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

(see in articular paragraphs 117 and 118). NRAs in other Member States have already applied price
squeeze tests in line with this notice, in particular on the network architecture and network protocol
(xDSL) markets. It is, in the first place, the responsibility of the NRAs to inquire about any possible anti-
competitive behaviour by any operator, given of course, that they are sufficiently equipped with all
necessary powers. The Commission, on the other hand, examines any formal complaints submitted to it by
any interested party identifying possible infringements of the Community competition rules. So far, no
such complaint has been received.

(1) 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.

(2) Directive 2002/22/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights
relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive), OJ L 108, 24.4.2002.
(3) Directive 2002/20/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic

communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive), OJ L 108, 24.4.2002.

(4) Directive 2002/19/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of,

electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive), OJ L 108, 24.4.2002.
IP/03/1356 and IP/03/1750.

(5)
(6) Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions (COM(2003) 715 final), Report on the Implementation of the EU
Electronic Communications Regulatory Package.

(7) Notice on the application of the competition rules to access agreements in the telecommunications sector (cid:1)

Framework, relevant markets and principles, OJ C 265, 22.8.1998.

(2004/C 78 E/0909)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3776/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject: US GAAP

Could the Commission clarify whether CESR has been asked to provide an answer on what it believes
constitutes ‘equivalent’ accounting standards in its advice on Level 2 implementing measures for the
Prospectus Directive (2003/71/EC (1)) Article 20(3) and Section 4.2 of the Commission’s mandate of
7 February 2003 (CESR 03-038)?

Given the worrying trend of Asian companies looking to Asian rather than EU markets in the absence of
clarification on EU policy, can the Commission make a clear statement of intention to recognise US GAAP
as equivalent for non-EU issuers?

(1) OJ L 345, 31.12.2003, p. 64.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2004)

The first provisional mandate of 18 March 2002 sent to the Committee of European Securities Regulations
(CESR) by the Commission requested advice related to the detailed content of prospectuses. Article 7 and
its implementing measures cover the minimum information requirements to be included in a prospectus
for both Union and non Union issuers prepared according to Community requirements. This advice might
also have a bearing on any possible measures implementing Articles 20(3) of the Prospectus Directive
(2003/71/EC) (1). These implementing measures need to address the issue of the financial information to be
given by third countries issuers in line with existing Community legislation that already address this issue
in Directive 2001/34/EC (2).