WRITTEN QUESTION P-1041/04 by W.G. van Velzen (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Number portability in connection with mobile telephony.
Date: 2004-03-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, accession to the European Union, communications systems, liberalisation of the market, mobile phone, regulation of telecommunications, telecommunications

C 84 E/934

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to the opinion of the Court of First Instance of 25 March
2004 on the case brought by the candidate. The Court rejected all claims by Mr Barbosa. Therefore, there
can be no question of the kind of irregularities imputed to the Commission. A copy of this Judgement is
sent directly to the Honourable Member.

The Commission can also confirm that, in keeping with established arrangements, all possible measures
have been taken to ensure the equality of treatment of all candidates who participated in the pre-selection
tests and written exams of the competition referred to in the Honourable Member’s question.

As is the case for all competitions, an independent Selection Board was appointed in this case in order to
prepare and mark the different exam papers. This Board comprised a capable team of experienced
Commission officials, covering a broad range of Community languages and working in the two fields
covered by the notice of competition. The questions were carefully checked before they were sent to the
Translation Service of the Commission. All exam papers (cid:1) the optical reader forms on which the
candidates marked their replies to the pre-selection tests as well as the written exams (cid:1) remained
anonymous throughout the marking process. Each written exam was marked by two markers working
independently. If necessary, third markings took place before the Selection Board decided on the final
mark.

In response to the assertion about a ‘preponderance of staff members from some nationalities’, in relation
to this specific case, the Commission emphasises that the competition comprised two different fields
(external relations (cid:1) field 1 (cid:1) and management of aid to non-member countries’ (cid:1) field 2), each resulting
in separate reserve lists. The list for the first working field was relatively short and comprised 80 successful
candidates. This list indicated a substantial (cid:1) though far from preponderant (cid:1) representation of citizens of
one Member State, whereas the list
the second field, comprising 250 successful candidates,
demonstrated a more even spread by nationality. The administrative procedures used, through their rigour
and transparency, ensured that all candidates benefited from the same conditions of impartiality and
independence. In view of the above, the Commission therefore considers that equality of treatment has
been ensured throughout the whole process.

for

In response to the Honourable Member’s more general comment about the protection of a preponderance
of candidates from particular nationalities, the Commission would reiterate its obligation and the law and
its policy commitment to maintaining geographical balance across the Institutions combined with the
rigorous procedures to guarantee merit applied in all cases.

(2004/C 84 E/1032)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1041/04

by W.G. van Velzen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 March 2004)

Subject: Number portability in connection with mobile telephony

Can the Commission give details of the EU Member States and accession countries in which number

1.
portability in connection with mobile telephony had not been introduced by 1 March 2004?

2.
Can the Commission give details of the extent to which telecommunications operators in the
Member States impose conditions on customers who wish to change operators but keep their numbers,
such as long waiting periods and the charging of costs?

3.
Number portability was supposed to have been introduced in the Member States by mid-2002. What
measures does the Commission plan to take against those Member States which have failed to meet this
deadline with a view to forcing them to implement number portability in the near future?

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/935

From the point of view of the functioning of the market, how does the Commission assess the

4.
conditions imposed on customers, such as long waiting periods, the charging of costs, etc.?

Does the Commission share my view that such conditions must be kept to a minimum in order to

5.
ensure that a genuine market can operate?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

Directive 2002/22/EC (Universal Service Directive) mandates mobile number portability in its

1.
Article 30. This Directive has been applicable since 25 July 2003.

As of 1 March 2004, mobile number portability has been implemented in all Member States except
Austria.

As far as Accession Countries are concerned, information available to the Commission shows that mobile
number portability is included in the draft national legislations transposing the Community framework on
electronic communications. In practice however, it will be available some time after the accession date on
1 May 2004, except in Lithuania and Hungary, where it should already be implemented.

The Universal Service Directive states that national regulatory authorities (NRAs) should ensure that
2.
direct charges to subscribers should not act as a disincentive towards number portability.
In the
9th Implementation Report, published in December 2003 (1) the Commission had noted that the success of
number portability seemed to be linked to the charge imposed by the operator for porting the number.
As of 1 August 2003, 6 million mobile numbers had been ported. The Commission is not aware of
specific problems in the Member States in relation to mobile number portability, except in Austria, as
mentioned above.

3.

The Commission is currently considering the appropriate action to be taken against Austria.

4.
The Commission is, as mentioned, not aware of specific problems in Member States. NRAs in the
Member States have defined the conditions to be applied for mobile number portability, when the
operators were not able to reach an agreement.

The Commission believes constraints on consumers should be kept to a minimum in order to

5.
increase competition.

(1) COM 2003(715) final.

(2004/C 84 E/1033)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1042/04

by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE)
and Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 April 2004)

Subject: Pensions: discrimination against private pensions

Can the Commission clarify why third pillar pensions (personal pensions, group personal pensions and
stakeholder pensions) are to be included within the scope of the proposed directive on equal treatment
between women and men in access to and supply of goods and services (1) when second pillar pensions
(occupational pensions) are not? Will the Commission accept that this is discrimination against the private
sector?

(1) COM(2003) 0657 final (cid:1) C5-0654/2003.