WRITTEN QUESTION P-0245/04 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission. Impact assessment of OPTA decisions.
Date: 2004-01-27
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Netherlands, discretionary power, impact study, infringement procedure (EU), national implementing measure, regulation of telecommunications, supervisory body

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/181

Given the inaccuracies and differences that exist between the economic studies presented by the Spanish
Government and those presented by experts from other organisations, the European Commission has
asked the Spanish Government to provide additional information on the price and cost of water from the
Ebro transfer.

Does the Commission consider that the Spanish Government has provided justification for the cost of a
cubic metre of water transferred from the Ebro being lower in Murcia or Almeria (cid:1) after hundreds of
kilometres and various pumping operations (cid:1) than in Barcelona? Does it consider the prices and costs that
appear in the NHP economic analysis to constitute covert subsidising of economic output and activities in
certain Community regions, in unfair competition with those in other areas?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2004)

With regard to the projected costs of water to be delivered by the proposed Ebro transfer, the Commission
is aware of the differences in the cost projections made on the one hand by the Government of Spain and
on the other hand by organisations such as the Foundation for a New Water Culture.

The Commission is also aware that the projected price of water to be paid by private users in Barcelona
may be considerably higher than the price of water delivered to farmers in Almeria and Murcia.
Traditionally across the EU, the price paid by individual water consumers is considerably higher than the
prices paid by farmers.

Article 9 of the Water Framework Directive (Directive 2000/60/EEC of the Parliament and of the Council
of 23 October 2000, establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (1))
imposes upon Member States the obligation to respect the principle of cost recovery for water services, to
use price incentives to encourage efficient water use and to achieve an equitable balance of the cost burden
between different water users. However, in deciding their pricing arrangements, Member States may take
into account social and economic considerations as well as geographic and climatic conditions.

In December 2003, the Commission received four separate but related requests for Community funds to
support the building of the infrastructure for the Ebro transfer. The Commission is currently evaluating
these requests in the light of the rules and procedures which apply to the structural funds and the cohesion
fund. Part of this evaluation includes an assessment of the economic and financial justification for the
projects.

(1) OJ L 327, 22.12.2000.

(2004/C 84 E/0221)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0245/04

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(27 January 2004)

Subject: Impact assessment of OPTA decisions

The European Telecoms package is currently being implemented in the Netherlands by means of a new
Telecoms law. This new law gives OPTA, the Netherlands Telecoms regulator, greater powers.

In November 2003 the Second Chamber adopted an amendment resulting in ex-ante control of OPTA’s
decisions. OPTA will be required to carry out an impact assessment of any far-reaching decision, indicating
the repercussions of the measure on a firm and setting out the alternatives.

Ex-post control of OPTA already exists in that any firm can challenge an OPTA decision in the courts.
Furthermore, OPTA is required to submit its decisions to the other European Telecoms regulators.

C 84 E/182

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

Does the Commission consider that, given the existing controls on OPTA, the new law imposes an

1.
unnecessarily heavy burden, will delay OPTA decisions and restrict its options?

2.
Does the Commission believe that such delays will make it more difficult for OPTA to act effectively
and therefore be to the advantage of dominant parties by allowing them to exercise a monopoly for
longer?

3.
Does the Commission consider that this provision is in breach of any provisions of the Telecoms
package and the objectives of the relevant guidelines that Member States are required to transpose into
national law?

4.

If so, what action does the Commission intend to take?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2004)

As was the case on the occasion of the Commmission’s reply to the previous question of the Honourable
Member on a closely related subject (P-2753/03 (1)), the Commission has not received notification from the
legislative measures transposing the new regulatory framework on electronic
Dutch authorities of
communications.

In addition to the information provided in the response to the above-mentioned written question, on
17 December 2003 the second stage of infringement proceedings under Article 226 of the EC Treaty was
launched against the Netherlands, among others, for non-communication of its transposition measures (2).
As the Commission has not received notification of the transposition measures from the Dutch authorities,
it
is not yet possible to determine whether the legislation transposing the new framework in the
Netherlands will be in compliance with it, including as regards the discretionary powers of the national
regulatory authority (NRA).

The Commission will analyse the legislative measures transposing the new framework in the Netherlands
once they have been notified and,
in the event of non-compliance, may propose the opening of an
infringement proceeding. In the case of persisting non-compliance with the Directive’s provisions, the
Commission might decide to apply to the Court of Justice after issuing a reasoned opinion. As the
Honourable Member will recall, the Court has sole competence to rule on the legality or otherwise of a
transposition measure.

(1) OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004, p. 755.
(2)
IP/03/1750 of 17.12.2003.

(2004/C 84 E/0222)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0250/04

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 February 2004)

Subject: Retirement age of football referees

Pierluigi Collina is the best football referee in the world and has been voted the game’s best official six
times. Yet in 2005 he will no longer be able to referee, as 45 is the official retirement age for his
profession in Italy. Other Member States also have a retirement age of 45 for football referees.

Would the Commission agree that this rule constitutes age discrimination under EU law?

Would the Commission also agree that this rule is in breach of EU employment laws?