Amended proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the European Electronic Communications Market Authority (presented by the Commission pursuant to Article 250(2) of the EC Treaty)
Date: 2008-11-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: competition law, electronic mail, single market, supervisory power, telecommunications, transmission network

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 5.11.2008 
COM(2008) 720 final 

2007/0249 (COD) 

Amended proposal for a 

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

establishing the European Electronic Communications Market Authority 

(presented by the Commission pursuant to Article 250(2) of the EC Treaty) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
2007/0249 (COD) 

Amended proposal for a 

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

establishing the European Electronic Communications Market Authority 

(Text with EEA relevance) 

1. 

PROCEDURAL STAGES 

The proposal — COM(2007) 699 final — was adopted by the Commission on 13 November 
2007 and was sent to the European Parliament and to the Council on 15 November 2007. 

The  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  adopted  its  opinion  on  the  Commission’s 
proposal on 29 May 2008. 

The Committee of the Regions adopted its opinion on the Commission’s proposal on 18 June 
2008. 

The European Parliament adopted 164 amendments at first reading on 24 September 2008. 

2. 

OBJECTIVE OF THE PROPOSAL 

The proposal to establish a European Electronic Communications Market Authority is part of 
the EU regulatory package for electronic communications proposed by the Commission with 
the aim of simplifying and improving the quality of the regulatory environment, completing 
the  single  market  and  ensuring  that  consumers  can  reap  the  full  benefit  of  a  dynamic  and 
increasingly borderless communications market. 

The objective of the proposed Regulation is to establish a specialised and independent expert 
body to assist the Commission and the national regulatory authorities in the implementation of 
the EU regulatory framework for electronic communications.  

The  Authority  would  complement  at  European  level  the  regulatory  tasks  performed  at 
national  level  by  the  regulatory  authorities,  in  particular  by  providing:  a  framework  for 
national  regulatory  authorities  to  cooperate;  regulatory  oversight  of  market  definitions; 
analysis and implementation of remedies; definition of transnational markets; advice on radio 
frequency  issues;  decisions  on  numbering  administration  and  advice  on  number  portability; 
advice  on  network  and  information  security  issues;  and  general  informational  and  advisory 
functions on issues related to the electronic communications sector.  

3. 

OBJECTIVE OF THE AMENDED PROPOSAL 

The amended proposal adapts the original proposal on a number of points as suggested by the 
European Parliament. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
4. 

OBSERVATIONS ON THE AMENDMENTS ADOPTED BY THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

4.1. 

Amendments accepted by the Commission 

The Commission can accept amendments 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 20, 21, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 
29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 42, 43, 44, 47, 48, 50, 54, 57, 59, 60, 62, 65, 66, 68, 69, 73, 77, 
78, 79, 85, 87, 89, 91, 92, 94, 97, 98, 100, 101, 103, 104, 105, 106, 115, 117, 120, 125, 133, 
136, 140, 141, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 149, 152, 153, 156, 163, 166. 

4.2. 

Amendments accepted by the Commission in part or subject to rewording 

Amendments  12,  22,  49,  53,  61,  63,  70,  81,  83,  88,  99,  102,  107,  108,  109,  110,  111,  114, 
116, 118, 119, 121, 122, 123, 124, 129, 130, 131, 159, 160, 161 and 168. 

The Commission can accept in principle that a body should be established which departs from 
the Authority as originally proposed, and therefore accepts all amendments which relate to the 
change  of  name.  The  Commission  proposes  to  create  the  Body  of  European  Telecoms 
Regulators ("the Body"). 

– Amendment 12 

The  Commission  accepts  the  establishment  of  a  new  body  called  "Body  of  European 
Telecoms Regulators" and inserts some new drafting underlying the importance of reinforcing 
the  cooperation  between  national  regulatory  authorities.  The  Commission  can  accept  the 
insertion of ‘(hereinafter “NRAs”)’ at the end of the first sentence. 

Recital 12: 

"This calls for the reinforcement of the cooperation of the national regulatory authorities 
at  European  level  through  the  establishment  of  a  new  Body,  the  Body  of  European 
Telecoms Regulators (hereinafter "the Body"). BERT The Body would make an effective 
contribution  to  furthering  the  completion  of  the  internal  market  through  the  assistance  it 
provides to the Commission and the national regulatory authorities (hereinafter “NRAs”). It 
would  operate  as  a  point  of  reference  and  would  establish  confidence  by  virtue  of  its 
independence,  the  quality  of  the  advice  it  delivers  and  the  information  it  disseminates,  the 
transparency of its procedures and methods of operation, and its diligence in performing the 
tasks assigned to it." 

– Amendment 22 

The Commission can  accept this new recital. However,  while  some  markets  may  inherently 
have cross-border characteristics, the Commission has so far not recognised any such global 
market (contrary to what is stated in the text proposed by the European Parliament). Besides, 
the role of the Body should rather be to assist in developing a common regulatory approach. 
Finally, the term ‘global telecommunications services’, which is not defined anywhere in the 
regulatory framework, should be replaced by ‘cross-border business services’.  

Recital 22a (new): 

‘Cross-border  business  services  are  a  particular  case  where  harmonising  conditions  of 
authorisation might be necessary. It is generally recognised that these services, consisting 
of managed business data and voice services for multinational companies with locations in 
different countries, and often different continents, are inherently cross-border and, within 
Europe, pan-European. BERT The Body should assist in developing a common regulatory 
approach  so  that  the  economic  benefits  of  integrated,  seamless  services  can  accrue  to  all 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
parts of Europe.’ 

– Amendment 49 

The  Commission  can  accept  the  insertion  of  the  new  paragraph,  which  improves  the 
Commission’s  proposal  by  clarifying  the  role  of  the  Body  vis-à-vis  the  national  regulatory 
authorities  and  suggests  referring  to  organisational  support  for  describing  the  role  of  the 
Body.  However,  the  phrase  ‘it  shall  adopt  common  positions  and  comments’  should  be 
deleted as it is redundant and already covered by Article 3 of the proposal.  

Article 1, paragraph 3: 

‘BERT The Body shall carry out its tasks in cooperation with the NRAs and the Commission. 

BERT The Body shall serve as a means for the exchange of information and the adoption 
of  consistent  decisions  by  NRAs.  It  shall  provide  an  the  organisational  basis  support  for 
the  decision-making  of  NRAs.  It  shall  adopt  common  positions  and  comments. 
Furthermore, it shall advise the Commission and assist the NRAs in all matters within the 
scope  of  the  tasks  assigned  to  the  NRAs  by  the  Framework  Directive  and  the  Specific 
Directives.’ 

– Amendment 53 

The  Commission  considers  in  a  positive  light  the  idea  of  making  clear  the  Body’s  role  in 
increasing consistency in the imposition of remedies. However, while monitoring of general 
developments  within  the  meaning  of  Article  21  of  the  Regulation  is  acceptable,  the 
monitoring  of  implementation  is  a  task  for  the  Commission,  and  cannot  be  accepted. 
Furthermore,  ‘common  positions’  should  be  replaced  by  ‘common  approaches’,  since  the 
former is a term of art in Community and EU law.  

Article 3 - point aa (new): 

‘develop common positions approaches, guidelines and best practices for the imposition of 
regulatory  remedies  at  the  national  level  and  monitor  their  implementation  across  Member 
States;’ 

– Amendment 61 

This amendment emphasises an important aspect of the Body’s work in regard to cross-border 
services. However the provision needs some redrafting, in particular to avoid the term ‘global 
telecommunications services’, which is not defined in the regulatory framework and remains 
unclear. Moreover, it would be more appropriate to refer to the rules governing the provision 
of services across borders as ‘common rules’. Finally, ‘common positions’ should be replaced 
by ‘common approaches’ since the former is a term of art in Community and EU law.  

Article 3, point ia (new): 

‘develop  common  positions  approaches  on  cross-border  pan-European  issues  such  as 
GTSs  in  order  to  increase  regulatory  consistency  and  promote  a  single  pan-European 
market and common pan-European rules.’ 

– Amendment 63  

The  Commission  can  accept  some  of  the  redrafting  in  the  first  sentence  but  considers  the 
imposition  of  an  obligation  on  the  Commission  to  consult  the  Body  to  be  excessive.  The 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
Commission  welcomes  the  insertion  of  the  last  sentence,  since  assistance  to  the  European 
Parliament in particular with legislative action could improve the process and the quality of 
the act in question. 

Article 4, paragraph 2: 

‘In  order  to  promote  the  harmonised  application  of  the  provisions  of  the  Framework 
Directive and the Specific Directives, the Commission shall may also request the assistance 
of BERT the Body in the preparation of recommendations or decisions to be adopted by the 
Commission in accordance with Article 19 of Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive). 
The European Parliament may also request such assistance from BERT the Body as it may 
reasonably require in relation to any enquiry pursuant to Article 193 of the Treaty or any 
legislation within the scope of the BERT the Body’s functions.’ 

– Amendment 70 

The Commission can accept this amendment, which must be read in conjunction with the new 
point  3(ia)  on  the  promotion  of  cross-border  services.  However,  this  provision  needs  some 
redrafting:  it  would  be  more  appropriate  to  refer  to  the  rules  governing  the  provision  of 
services  across  borders  as  ‘common  rules’  and  to  designate  the  providers  of  ‘global 
telecommunications services’ as providers of ‘cross-border services’.  

Article 4, paragraph 3, point pa (new): 

‘measures  to  ensure  the  development  of  common  pan-European  rules  and  requirements 
for GTSs providers of cross-border business services.’ 

– Amendment 81 

The Commission  can  accept the idea  of the Body advising the Commission  and working in 
close  cooperation  with  the  RSPG  in  matters  within  its  responsibility  relating  to  spectrum. 
However, it cannot accept the Body advising the RSPG and RSC, since giving advice to an 
advisory group and a committee is not appropriate. The Commission can accept the deletion 
of the references to studies and reviews and the insertion of ‘as appropriate… affected by’, on 
the understanding that the new body will have a reduced role on spectrum matters. 

Article 10, paragraph 1: 

‘Upon request, BERT the Body shall provide advice to the Commission, and work in close 
cooperation with to the Radio Spectrum Policy Group (hereinafter ‘RSPG’) or the Radio 
Spectrum Committee (hereinafter ‘RSC’), as appropriate, in relation to matters within the 
scope  of  its  functions  which  affect  or  are  affected  by  the  use  of  radio  frequencies  for 
electronic  communications  in  the  Community.  It  shall  work  in  close  cooperation  with  the 
RSPG and the RSC as appropriate.’ 

– Amendment 83 

The  Commission  can  accept  that  the  Body  can  contribute  to  the  reports  published  by  the 
Commission but rejects the reference to RSPG and RSC because the RSPG and RSC do not 
produce reports. The reference to ‘any other relevant body’ cannot be accepted because it is 
too general.  

Article 10, paragraph 4 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
‘BERT The Body shall contribute to reports published by the Commission, the RSPG, the 
RSC or any other relevant body, as appropriate, on prospective frequencies developments in 
the electronic communications sector and policies in which it shall identify the potential needs 
and challenges. 

– Amendment 88 

The  Commission  can  accept  the  redrafting  of  the  first  phrase  in  the  first  sentence  but  the 
proposed setting, with the Body advising an advisory group (RSPG) and a committee (RSC), 
is not appropriate. The Commission considers that there is still a need to clarify the role of the 
Body in relation to the common selection procedure for rights of use for spectrum / numbers.  

Article 13, subparagraph 1: 

‘The Commission may request BERT the Body to deliver an opinion to the Commission the 
RSPG or the RSC on the withdrawal of rights of use issued under the common procedures 
provided for in Article 6b of Directive 2002/20/EC (Authorisation Directive).’ 

– Amendment 99 

The  Commission  can  accept  the  deletion  of  the  reference  to  management  of  the  spectrum 
register, on the understanding that the new body will have a reduced role in spectrum matters. 
However  the  Commission  cannot  accept  the  deletion  of  the  reference  to  management  of  a 
roaming  database.  The  Roaming  Regulation  is  part  of  the  regulatory  framework  and  the 
Body’s  aim  is  to  assist  the  Commission  and  NRAs  in  implementing  that  framework.  The 
Body  is  particularly  well  placed  to  undertake  this  task.  Deletion  would  deprive  the 
Commission, NRAs and consumers of a readily usable tool to help implement the regulatory 
framework in relation to roaming. 

Article 20: 

‘Management of the spectrum information register and of the mobile roaming database 

The Body shall be responsible for the management and publication of a database on the 
pricing  of  voice  and  data  services  for  mobile  customers  when  roaming  within  the 
Community,  including,  where  appropriate,  the  specific  costs  related  to  roaming  calls 
made  and  received  in  the  outermost  regions  of  the  Community.  It  shall  monitor 
developments in such prices and publish an annual report.’ 

– Amendment 102  

The  Commission  can  accept  the  insertion  of  the  first  phrase  in  the  first  sentence  and  the 
insertion  of  the  last  sentence.  The  Commission  cannot  accept  moving  the  phrase  ‘in 
conjunction with the publication of the annual report’, and considers that it should be kept as 
in the original proposal. 

Article 21, paragraph 3: 

‘The Commission may request BERT the Body, in conjunction with the publication of the 
annual  report,  to  deliver  an  opinion  on  the  measures  that  could  be  taken  to  overcome  the 
problems identified in assessing the issues referred to in paragraph 1, in conjunction with the 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
publication  of  the  annual  report.  This  opinion  shall  be  presented  to  the  European 
Parliament.’ 

– Amendment 107 

While the Commission can accept the deletion of (d), (e) and (f), it cannot accept the deletion 
of the reference to the Administrative Board. The approach taken by Parliament so far raises a 
number  of  legal,  institutional  and  budgetary  concerns.  Further  consideration  is  needed 
regarding  the  precise  structure  envisaged  by  the  Parliament,  in  particular  to  safeguard  the 
Community competence and the role of the Commission, while ensuring the independence of 
NRAs.  

Article 24: 

‘Bodies of BERT the Body 

BERT The Body shall comprise: 

(a) an Administrative Board of Regulators 

(b) a Board of Regulators 

(c) a Managing Director.’ 

– Amendment 108 

The  Commission  cannot  accept  the  deletion  of  the  reference  to  the  Administrative  Board, 
which  ensures  a  ‘Community  approach’.  The  precise  structure  of  the  Body  needs  to  be 
designed  in  such  way  as  to  safeguard  the  Community  competence  and  the  role  of  the 
Commission, while ensuring the independence of NRAs.  

Article 25, paragraph 1 

‘The Administrative Board of Regulators shall be composed of twelve members. Six shall 
be  appointed  by  the  Commission,  and  six  by  the  Council  from  among  one  member  per 
Member  State  who  shall  be  the  Heads  or  nominated  high-level  representatives  of  the 
independent  NRAs  with  responsibility  for  day-to-day  application  of  the  regulatory 
framework in that Member States. The NRAs shall nominate one alternate per Member State. 
The  Commission  shall  attend  as  an  observer  with  the  prior  agreement  of  the  Board  of 
Regulators’ 

– Amendments 109, 110, 111, 116, 118, 119, 122, 123 and 124  

The structure envisaged by the Parliament and in particular the deletion of the reference to the 
Administrative Board in amendments 109, 110, 111, 116, 118, 119, 122, 123 and 124, and its 
replacement  by  the  Board  of  Regulators,  cannot  be  accepted  by  the  Commission.  The 
references to the Board of Regulators in amendments 109, 110, 111, 116, 118, 119, 122, 123 
and 124 should be changed to references to the Administrative Board. 

- Amendment 114 

The Commission cannot accept the deletion of the reference to the Administrative Board. It is, 
however,  appropriate  to  strengthen  the  Board  of  Regulators’  role  in  the  appointment  of  the 
Managing Director.  

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
Article 26, paragraph 1 

‘The Administrative Board of Regulators shall, after consulting the Board of Regulators 
and  giving  it  the  opportunity  to  confirm  or  not  the  list  of  candidates  referred  to  in 
Article  29(2)  and  to  indicate  its  preferred  candidate,  appoint  the  Managing  Director  in 
accordance  with  that  provision[Article  26(13b)].  The  Board  of  Regulators  shall  take  all 
decisions relating to the performance of BERT’s functions as listed in Article 3.’ 

– Amendment 121 

Since the Commission notes that Council and Parliament agree to keep ENISA separate from 
this  new  body,  the  deletion  of  the  reference  to  the  Chief  Network  Security  Officer  and  its 
replacement by a reference to the Managing Director is accepted. However, the Commission 
cannot  accept  the  deletion  of  the  reference  to  the  Administrative  Board,  which  ensures  a 
Community approach. 

Article 26, paragraph 8: 

‘The  Administrative  Board  of  Regulators  shall  exercise  disciplinary  authority  over  the 
Managing Director.’ 

– Amendments 129 and 130  

The  structure  envisaged  by  the  Parliament  cannot  be  accepted  by  the  Commission.  The 
Administrative  Board  must  be  kept  to  safeguard  the  Community  interest.  Therefore, 
amendments 129 and 130 cannot be accepted and Articles 27 and 28 referring to the Board of 
Regulators must be reinstated. 

– Amendment 131 

The  Commission  proposes  some  redrafting  to  keep  in  the  text  the  idea  of  a  ‘Managing’ 
Director who does not accept any instructions from any Member State or any private or public 
interest. 

Article 29, paragraph 1: 

‘BERT The Body shall be managed by its Managing Director, who shall be accountable to 
and act under the instructions of guidance of the Board of Regulators in the performance of 
his/her functions. The Managing Director shall not otherwise seek or  accept any instruction 
from any government or from any body.’ 

- Amendment 132 

It is appropriate to refer to the amended mechanism whereby the Board of Regulators has an 
opportunity to confirm the list of candidates for the post of Managing Director and to indicate 
its preferred candidate. 

Article 29, paragraph 2 

‘After  consulting  the  Board  of  Regulators  pursuant  to  Article  26(1),  the  Managing 
Director shall be appointed by the Administrative Board of Regulators on the basis of merit, 
and the skills and experience relevant for electronic communications networks and services, 
from a list of at least two candidates proposed by the Commission. Before appointment, 
the suitability of the candidate selected by the Administrative Board of Regulators may be 
subject to a non-binding opinion of the European Parliament and the Commission. To this 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
end,  the  candidate  shall  be  invited  to  make  a  statement  before  the  responsible  competent 
committee of the European Parliament and answer questions put by its members.’ 

– Amendment 159 

The Commission can accept the simplification proposed by the European Parliament, but the 
reference to the Administrative Board needs to be reinstated. Further consideration is needed 
on  the  precise  structure  envisaged  by  the  Parliament,  in  particular  to  safeguard  the 
Community competence and the role of the Commission, while ensuring the independence of 
NRAs. 

Article 44: 

‘BERT’s The Body’s staff, the members of the Administrative Board, the members of the 
Board  of  Regulators  and  the  Managing  Director  of  BERT  shall  make  an  annual 
declaration  of  commitments  and  a  declaration  of  interests  indicating  any  direct  or  indirect 
interests, which might be considered prejudicial to their independence. Such declarations shall 
be made in writing.’ 

– Amendment 160  

The Commission can accept the simplification proposed by the European Parliament but the 
reference to the Administrative Board needs to be reinstated. Further consideration is needed 
on  the  precise  structure  envisaged  by  the  Parliament,  in  particular  to  safeguard  the 
Community competence and the role of the Commission, while ensuring the independence of 
NRAs. 

Article 45, paragraph 2 

‘BERT The Body shall ensure that the public and any interested parties are given objective, 
reliable and easily accessible information, in particular with regard to the results of its work, 
where  appropriate.  It  shall  also  make  public  the  declarations  of  interests  made  by  the 
members of the Administrative Board, the members of the Board of Regulators and the 
Managing Director.  

– Amendment 161 

The Commission can accept the simplification proposed by the European Parliament, but the 
reference to the Administrative Board needs to be reinstated. Further consideration is needed 
on  the  precise  structure  envisaged  by  the  Parliament,  in  particular  to  safeguard  the 
Community competence and the role of the Commission, while ensuring the independence of 
NRAs. 

Article 46, paragraph 2 

‘Members  of  BERT’  the  Body’s  Administrative  Board,  the  Board  of  Regulators,  the 
Managing Director, external experts, and members of the staff of BERT the Body are shall 
be subject to the requirements of confidentiality pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty, even 
after their duties have ceased.’  

– Amendment 168 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
The Article must indicate all sources of income, so the Commission cannot accept the word 
‘notably’.  The  Commission  can  accept  points  a)  and  b).  A  financial  contribution  from  the 
national regulatory authorities can be accepted provided that such contributions are voluntary, 
as originally proposed by the Commission. Were these contributions to be made obligatory, 
some  NRAs  would  find  it  difficult  to  contribute  to  the  Body’s  funding  as  their  financial 
resources are meagre. Similarly, the Commission cannot accept point d), which makes it plain 
how  long  it  would  take  to  implement  a  form  of  compulsory  national  financing.  The 
Commission finds that point c) is acceptable, although such a strict quota would in practise be 
unworkable  since  the  Body  must  be  able  to  allocate  staff  according  to  its  needs.  The 
Commission would suggest inserting point c) in a different paragraph.  

Article 36, paragraph 1 

‘1. The revenues and resources of BERT the Body shall consist notably of: 

(a) a subsidy from the Community, entered under the appropriate headings of the general 
budget  of  the  European  Union  (Commission  Section),  as  decided  by  the  budgetary 
authority and in accordance with point 47 of the Interinstitutional Agreement on budgetary 
discipline and sound financial management; 

(b)  any  financial  voluntary  contribution  from  the  national  regulatory  authorities  of  the 
Member States. each NRA. Each Member State shall ensure that NRAs have the adequate 
financial resources required to participate in the work of BERT; 

2.  (c)Up  to  half  of  the  professional  staff  shall  be  made  up  of  seconded  national  experts 
(SNEs) coming from the national authorities.  

(d) the Board or Regulators shall agree, at the latest, six months after the entry into force of 
this  Regulation,  the  level  of  the  financial  contribution  to  be  made  by  each  Member  State 
under point (b); 

(e) the appropriateness of the budgetary structure and Member States’ compliance shall be 
reviewed by 1 January 2014.’ 

4.3. 

Amendments not accepted by the Commission 

Amendments 4, 5, 7, 13, 16, 18, 19, 24, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 45, 46, 51, 52, 55, 56, 58, 64, 67, 
71, 72, 74, 75, 76, 80, 82, 84, 86, 90, 93, 95, 96, 112, 113, 126, 127, 128, 134, 135, 137, 138, 
139, 142, 148, 150, 151, 154, 155, 157, 158, 162, 164,  165, 167 cannot be accepted by the 
Commission. 

5. 

AMENDED PROPOSAL 

Having  regard  to  Article  250(2)  of  the  EC  Treaty,  the  Commission  amends  its  proposal  as 
indicated above. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
AMENDED LEGISLATIVE FINANCIAL STATEMENT 

1. 

NAME OF THE PROPOSAL: 

AMENDED  PROPOSAL  FOR  A  REGULATION  OF  THE  EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN 
ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS MARKET AUTHORITY 

2. 

ABM / ABB FRAMEWORK 

Policy area: Information Society 

Activity: Electronic Communications Policy 

3. 

BUDGET LINES 

3.1. 

Budget  lines  (operational  lines  and  related  technical  and  administrative 
assistance lines (ex- B..A lines)) including headings: 

New budget lines will be proposed for Titles 1 and 2 as well as for Title 3: 

09.02.04.01 The Body of the European Telecoms Regulators - Subsidy under Titles 1 
and 2 

09.02.04.02 The Body of the European Telecoms Regulators - Subsidy under Title 3 

3.2. 

Duration of the action and of the financial impact: 

2010 – 2015 

Any new appropriations after 2013 will have to be decided in the context of the new 
financial perspective by the budgetary authority. 

3.3. 

Budgetary characteristics: 

Budget line  Type of expenditure 

New 

EFTA 
contribution 

Contributions 
from applicant 
countries 

Heading in 
financial 
perspective 

09.02.04.01  Noncomp.  Diff  YES 

09.02.04.02  Noncomp.  Diff  YES 

YES 

YES 

NO 

NO 

No 1a 

No 1a 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
4. 

SUMMARY OF RESOURCES 

4.1. 

Financial Resources 

4.1.1. 

Summary of commitment appropriations (CA) and payment appropriations (PA) 

Expenditure type 

Section 
no. 

EUR million (to 3 decimal places) 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Total 

09.02.04.02  The  Body  of  the  European  Telecoms  Regulators  –  Subsidy  under 
Title 3 

Commitment 
Appropriations (CA) 

8.1. 

Payment  Appropriations 
(PA) 

a 

b 

0,900 

1,410 

1,440 

1,460 

5,210 

0,900 

1,410 

1,440 

1,460 

5,210 

09.02.04.01  The  Body  of  the  European  Telecoms  Regulators  –  Subsidy  under 
Titles 1 and 2 

Human 
associated 
(NDA) 

resources  and 
expenditure 

costs, 
Administrative 
other 
human 
than 
resources  and  associated 
costs 

8.2.4. 

8.2.5. 

d 

e 

1,786 

2,810 

2,810 

2,810 

10,216 

0,784 

1,220 

1,220 

1,220 

4,444 

Total 

2,570 

4,030 

4,030 

4,030 

14,660 

Total indicative financial cost of intervention 

TOTAL  CA  including 
cost 
Human 
of 
Resources 

TOTAL  PA  including 
cost 
Human 
of 
Resources 

a+d+e

3,470 

5,440 

5,470 

5,490 

19,870 

b+d+e

3,470 

5,440 

5,470 

5,490 

19,870 

4.1.2.  Compatibility with Financial Programming 

(cid:59) 

(cid:133) 

(cid:133) 

Proposal is compatible with existing financial programming. 

Proposal  will  entail  reprogramming  of  the  relevant  heading  in  the  financial 
perspective. 

Proposal  may  require  application  of  the  provisions  of  the  Inter-institutional 
Agreement1 (i.e. flexibility instrument or revision of the financial perspective). 

1 

See points 19 and 24 of the Interinstitutional Agreement. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
4.1.3.  Financial impact on Revenue 

(cid:133) 

(cid:59) 

Proposal has no financial implications on revenue 

Proposal  has  financial  impact.  The  following  is  a  prudential  estimate  of  the 
voluntary contributions from the Member States to be provided in accordance 
with the legal basis:  

EUR million (to one decimal place) 

Situation following action 

Prior to 
action  
2009 

Budget line 

Revenue 

2010  2011 

2012  2013

a) Revenue in absolute terms 

0 

0,2 

0,4 

0,5 

0,5 

b) Change in revenue 

variation

0,2 

0,2 

0,1 

0 

4.2. 

Human Resources FTE (including officials, temporary and external staff) – see 
detail under point 8.2.1. 

Annual requirements 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Total  number  of  human 
resources 

18 

28 

28 

28

5. 

CHARACTERISTICS AND OBJECTIVES 

5.1. 

Need to be met in the short or long term 

The Body will, acting within the scope of the Framework Directive and the Specific 
Directives,  contribute  to  the  better  functioning  of  the  internal  market  for  electronic 
communications  networks  and  services,  including  in  particular  the  development  of 
cross-Community  electronic  communications.  The  Body  will  act  as  a  centre  of 
expertise for electronic communication networks and services at EU level, drawing 
upon the experience of the national regulatory authorities. 

5.2. 

Added-value  of  Community  involvement  and  coherence  of  the  proposal  with 
other financial instruments and possible synergy 

Consistent  application  of  the  regulatory  framework  for  electronic  communications 
will improve competition and contribute to competitiveness. 

The  development  of  cross-border  services  can  be  hampered  by  the  need  to  comply 
with  different  national  conditions.  The  expertise  of  a  Community  body  will 
contribute  to  reducing  this  obstacle  and  also  reduce  the  administrative  burden  for 
enterprises. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
5.3. 

Objectives, expected results and related indicators of the proposal in the context 
of the ABM framework 

For  activities  related  to  the  definition  and  analysis  of  national  and  trans-national 
markets, an appropriate indicator is the number of relevant opinions submitted to the 
Commission. 

For  the  other  tasks  of  the  Body  (advice  on  cross-border  disputes,  exchange, 
issues, 
dissemination  and  collection  of 
management of the mobile roaming database), the effectiveness of the measures will 
be directly visible through the use and performance of these services. 

information,  advice  on  regulatory 

5.4.  Method of Implementation (indicative) 

(cid:59)  Centralised Management 

(cid:133) 

(cid:133) 

directly by the Commission 

indirectly by delegation to: 

(cid:133) 

executive Agencies 

(cid:59) 

bodies  set up by  the Communities as referred to in Article 185 of 
the Financial Regulation 

(cid:133) 

national public-sector bodies/bodies with a public-service mission 

(cid:133) 

Shared or decentralised management 

(cid:133)  with Member states 

(cid:133)  with Third countries 

(cid:133) 

Joint management with international organisations (please specify) 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
6. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

6.1.  Monitoring system 

Each  year,  the  work  of  the  Body  will  be  monitored  and  evaluated  in  the  Body's 
annual  general  report  (for  the  previous  year)  and  the  work  programme  (for  the 
following  year).  These  two  documents  are  adopted  by  the  Body's  Administrative 
Board. The work programme would be sent to the European Parliament, the Council, 
the Commission, and the annual report would be transmitted to European Parliament, 
the Council, the Commission, the European Economic and Social Committee and the 
Court of Auditors. 

6.2. 

Evaluation 

6.2.1.  Ex-ante evaluation  

The Commission's impact assessment accompanying this proposal covers the ex ante 
evaluation  concerning  the  needs  /  problems,  the  objectives,  the  policy  options 
(including the risks associated with them) and the economic and social impacts and 
monitoring  arrangements  associated  with  the  Body.  Furthermore,  Annex  III  of  the 
impact assessment provides cost-benefit analysis for the Body2.  

The  cost-benefit  analysis  found  that  under  a  conservative  scenario,  it  can  be 
estimated that in the policy areas where the Body would be active, it has the potential 
of  bringing  total  economic  benefits  exceeding  its  budgetary  costs  by  a  factor  of 
around  10-30  times  (i.e.  the  order  of  magnitude  of  the  benefits  would  be  around  € 
250 – 800 million). The benefits can amount to between € 550 and € 1400 million if 
the more optimistic scenarios for the growth of pan-European markets are realised. 

A major source of such benefit is the reduction in the regulatory risk which would be 
achieved  through  the  contribution  of  the  Body.  Even  a  marginal  reduction  in  the 
regulatory  risk  (of  around  10%)  across  Europe,  will  be  reflected  in  lower  cost  of 
capital for the industry. In addition, if implementation of major projects of this type 
can be brought forward by just one year, the economic benefits can be in the range of 
several hundred million euros. 

There are other important qualitative considerations supporting the establishment of 
the Body that cannot be adequately quantified or monetised in a cost-benefit analysis. 
In the long run, enabling competition between different new technological platforms 
is likely to be one of most important economic benefits associated with the Body.  

The Body could also substantially contribute to reduce the regulatory risks of R&D 
projects,  which  is  likely  to  increase  the  tendency  to  invest  in  R&D  and  thereby 
contribute  to  bridge  the  gap  between  actual  and  socially  desirable  level  of 
investments in a market-efficient way.  

Most  of  the  above  benefits  are  not  replicable  by  the  current  -  or  strengthened  - 
coordination between the Member States (that was analysed as an alternative option 

2 

SEC(2007) 1472. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
                                                 
in the impact assessment) based on the loose co-ordination structure of the European 
Regulators  Group  (ERG).  ERG's  peer-review  without  any  veto  power  cannot  be 
considered equally credible mechanism to reduce the risk for regulatory error across 
Europe  or  to  decrease  perceived  market  uncertainty  related  to  regulatory  discretion 
factors.  

Therefore,  even  by  applying  conservative  scenarios  on  the  potential  benefits  and 
related  costs,  the  establishment  of  the  Body  is  cost-effective  and  fully  justifiable 
from the EU budgetary perspective.  

6.2.2.  Terms and frequency of future evaluation 

The  Body,  in  line  with  its  founding  Regulation  will  have  to  produce  every  year  a 
general report on its activities for the previous year which will be forwarded to the 
European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  Commission,  the  Economic  and  Social 
Committee  and  the  Court  of  Auditors.  This  report  will  present  all  specific  actions 
undertaken by the Body and will provide indications for the evaluation of the actions 
undertaken under the proposed revision of the Regulation. 

An independent external evaluation of the implementation of the proposed regulation 
is to be carried out within five years from the effective start of the Body's operations. 
After  this  initial  evaluation  of  the  start-up  phase  the  activities  of  the  Body  will  be 
evaluated at least every five years. 

7. 

ANTI-FRAUD MEASURES 

In order to combat fraud, corruption and other unlawful activities, the provisions of 
Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 will apply without restriction to the Body, which will 
also accede to the Inter-Institutional Agreement of 25 May 1999 concerning internal 
investigations by OLAF. It will issue, without delay, the appropriate provisions to its 
staff. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
8. 

DETAILS OF RESOURCES 

It  is  estimated  that  the  Body  staff  complement  may  expand  to  28  FTE  once  fully 
established.  The  annual  budget  is  estimated  at  3,5  million  Euros  in  the  first  year, 
rising to 5,5 million Euros from year 2 onwards. 

8.1. 

Objectives of the proposal in terms of their financial cost 

Commitment appropriations in EUR million (to 3 decimal places) 

09.02.04.02  The  Body  of 
the  European  Telecoms 
Subsidy 
Regulators 
under Title 3 

- 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

TOTAL 

OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVE: Strengthening the Internal market 

0,900 

1,410 

1,440 

1,460 

5,210 

Economic Regulation, 
Analysis, 
Market 
Cooperation, 
Best 
practices & Technical 
Expertise 

TOTAL COST 

0,900 

1,410 

1,440 

1,460 

5,210 

The operational expenditure will be covered by a Community subsidy to the Body's budget. 

8.2. 

Administrative Expenditure of the Body 

The administrative expenditure will be covered from the budget of the Body, which 
will  be  financed  by  a  Community  subsidy  to  the  Body's  budget  (budget  line 
09.02.04.01 The Body of the European Telecoms Regulators – Subsidy under Titles 
1 and 2). 

8.2.1.  Number and type of human resources 

The table shows the staff allocated to the Body.  

Types of post 

Temporary agents  

External Staff  

AD 

AST 

CA 

END 

17 

TOTAL 

EN 

Staff to be assigned to management of the action 
using existing and/or additional resources (number 
of posts/FTEs) 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

7 

3 

2 

6 

18 

11 

5 

2 

10 

28 

11 

5 

2 

10 

28 

11 

5 

2 

10 

28 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
8.2.2.  Description of tasks deriving from the action 

The allocation of staff to the tasks of the Body, when it is fully operational, is shown 
in  the  table  below.  As  regards  the  figures  given  for  ENDs  and  CAs,  the 
corresponding posts should only be filled when they are actually required due to the 
development  of  the  workload  of  the  Body.  If  all  END  positions  are  filled,  there 
would  be  a  maximum  20  Full  Time  equivalent  on  AD  level  (plus  the  Director),  of 
which up to half should be Seconded National Experts from the NRAs. 

Director  

Operations:  Economic  Regulation,  Market  Analysis, 
Cooperation,  Best  practices  &  Technical 
Expertise 

Administration and Support 

Total 

8.2.3. 

Sources of human resources (statutory) 

AD  AST  END 

Contractual   Total 

1 

9 

1 

11 

1 

3 

1 

5 

1 

9 

- 

10 

- 

2 

- 

2 

3 

23 

2 

28 

The creation of the Body will have no impact on the number of posts (statutory staff) 
of the Commission (see also section 8.3 below).  

(cid:133) 

(cid:133) 

(cid:133) 

(cid:133) 

Posts pre-allocated within the APS/PDB exercise for year n 

Posts to be requested in the APS/PDB procedures. 

Posts  to  be  redeployed  using  existing  resources  within  the  managing  service 
(internal redeployment) 

Posts  required  for  year  n  although  not  foreseen  in  the  APS/PDB  exercise  for 
the year in question 

8.2.4.  Financial cost of human resources and associated costs  

EUR million (to 3 decimal places) 

Type of human resources 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Temporary agents  

1,220 

1,952 

1,952 

1,952 

External  Staff  (END,  contract 
staff, etc.) 

cost 

of  Human 
Total 
Resources  and  associated 
costs  

0,566 

0,858 

0,858 

0,858 

1,786 

2,810 

2,810 

2,810 

The average annual costs are assumed to be EUR 122 000 for temporary staff, EUR 73 000 
for ENDs and EUR 64 000 for other employees. 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
8.2.5. Other administrative expenditure  

The table below shows a breakdown of the administrative expenditure, which will be 
covered by a Community subsidy to the Body's budget (Budget line 09.02.04.01 The 
Body of the European Telecoms Regulators – Subsidy under Titles 1 and 2).  

EUR million (to 3 decimal places).  

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013  TOTAL 

Infrastructure 
expenses), 
communication, IT, etc. 

(Buildings 
equipment, 

and 
related 
consumables, 

0,290 

0,450 

0,450 

0,450 

1,640 

Missions and Meetings 

0,214 

0,336 

0,336 

0,336 

1,222 

Administrative  services  (translation,  studies, 
consulting, etc.) 

0,280 

0,434 

0,434 

0,434 

1,582 

Total Other Management Expenditure 

0,784 

1,220 

1,220 

1,220 

4,444 

8.3. 

Administrative Expenditure of the Commission 

The other Commission tasks related to monitoring and management of the Body will 
not require additional posts and expenditure beyond the resources currently used for 
coordination  with  the  ERG.  The  responsible  DG  may  temporarily  redistribute 
existing resources if need be. 

EN 

19 

   EN