COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Evaluation of BEREC and the BEREC Office
Date: 2026-01-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, European Commission
Subjects: Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications, Internet, artificial intelligence, digital single market, information security, information technology, operation of the Institutions, regulation of telecommunications, trans-European network, transmission network

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 21.1.2026  SWD(2026) 17 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EVALUATION  Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Evaluation of BEREC and the BEREC Office  {COM(2026) 34 final}  
 
 
Contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1 

1.1 Purpose and scope of the evaluation/fitness check ................................................................ 1 

2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? ......................... 2 

2.1 Description of the intervention and its objectives ................................................................. 2 

2.2 BEREC and the BEREC Office’s intervention logic ............................................................ 4 

3.  HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD? ........... 5 

4. 

EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART) ........................................................... 7 

4.1 To what extent was the intervention successful and why? .................................................... 8 

4.2 How did the EU intervention make a difference and to whom? ......................................... 17 

4.3 Is the intervention still relevant? ......................................................................................... 18 

5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? ................................... 20 

5.1 To what extent was the intervention successful? ................................................................ 20 

5.2 Did the EU intervention make a difference (EU added value)? .......................................... 23 

5.3 Is the intervention still relevant? ......................................................................................... 24 

ANNEX I:   PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ............................................................................. 26 

ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED ..................................... 26 

ANNEX III. EVALUATION MATRIX AND, WHERE RELEVANT, DETAILS ON ANSWERS 
TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS (BY CRITERION) ............................................... 31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Glossary 

 Term or acronym  Meaning or definition 

BEREC 

Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications 

BEREC Office 

Agency for Support for BEREC 

CAPs 

CPC 

Content and application providers 

Consumer Protection Cooperation Network 

Commission 

European Commission 

DG CONNECT 

The Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content 
and Technology 

DMA 

DSA 

EBMS 

ECN 

EDPB 

EDPS 

EECC 

ENISA 

ERGA 

EU 

ITU 

FTE 

Digital Markets Act 

Digital Services Act 

European Board for Media Services 

European Competition Network 

European Data Protection Board  

European Data Protection Supervisor 

European Electronic Communications Code 

European Union Agency for Cybersecurity 

European Regulators Group for Audiovisual Media Regulators 

European Union  

International Telecommunication Union 

Full time equivalent  

IMCO Committee  Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection 

ITRE Committee 

Committee on Industry, Research and Energy 

LEO satellite 

Low Earth Orbit satellite 

NRAs 

RSPG 

SWD 

national regulatory authorities 

Radio Spectrum Policy Group 

Staff Working Document 

TTE Council 

The Transport, Telecommunications and Energy Council 

VHCN 

WG 

Very High Capacity Networks 

working group 

 
 
 
 
1. 

Introduction 

1.1 Purpose and scope of the evaluation/fitness check 

Pursuant  to  Article  48  of  the  BEREC  Regulation1  establishing  the  Body  of  European 
Regulators  for  Electronic  Communications  (BEREC)  and  the  Agency  for  Support  for 
BEREC  (BEREC  Office)  the  Commission  must  in  compliance  with  the  Commission’s 
Better Regulation Guidelines assess BEREC’s and the BEREC Office’s performance in 
relation to their objectives, mandate, tasks and location (BEREC Office is located in Riga, 
Latvia2). The Commission is obliged to report to the European Parliament, the Council and 
the BEREC Office Management Board on the findings of its evaluation and to make those 
findings public. The evaluation must address any potential need to modify the structure or 
mandate of BEREC and the BEREC Office, and the financial implications of any such 
modification, especially in view of possible changes to the BEREC mandate, addition of 
tasks and any other factors impacting the functioning and responsibilities of BEREC and 
the BEREC Office. 

This Staff Working Document builds on the study supporting the evaluation of BEREC 
and  the  BEREC  Office  prepared  for  the  Commission  by  PPMI  and  PWC3.  This  study 
encompasses  the  period  from  2019  to  2023,  inclusive.  It  provides  a  comprehensive 
overview of the performance of BEREC and the BEREC Office across the following key 
criteria:  task  implementation,  effectiveness,  efficiency,  relevance,  coherence,  and  EU 
value  added.  The  evaluation  support  study  used several  methods  of  data  collection  and 
analysis (for more details please see  Annex  II).  These methods included desk research, 
document analysis, two surveys – one for national regulatory authorities (NRAs) and one 
for external stakeholders – an extensive interview programme with representatives from 
all  stakeholder  categories,  case  studies  and  participant  observation  serving  as  a 
supplementary tool4.  As part of the evaluation study participant observations were carried 
out for the three virtual workshops of BEREC. While in principle the evaluation covers 
period 2019-2023, most relevant developments up to December 2025 are also covered.  

The main stakeholders’ categories surveyed by the consultants are presented on the figure 
below. 

1      EUR-Lex - 32018R1971 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu) 

2   By Decision 2010/349/EU, the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States decided that 
the Office would have its seat in Riga. The Seat Agreement between the Government of the Republic of 
Latvia and the Office entered into force on 5 August 2011. 

3   Study supporting the Evaluation of BEREC and the BEREC Office, December 2023, by PPMI and PwC, 

not yet published. 

4   Participant  observation  is  a qualitative  data  collection method  used  by  researchers  to  collect  data  by 

observing human behaviour in a certain context by immersing themselves in that context. 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure  1.  Main  categories  of  stakeholders  surveyed  within  the  study  supporting  the 
evaluation of BEREC and the BEREC Office  

The list of stakeholders surveyed and interviewed in the scope of the study is available as 
part of Annex 4 of the  external  study supporting  the BEREC evaluation.  The executive 
summary, final report and annexes will also be made public.5. 

Note that BEREC has developed on its own initiative input to the European Commission 
on  the  functioning  of  BEREC  and  the  BEREC  Office  in  view  of  the  evaluation  under 
Article  48  of  the  BEREC  Regulation,  which  has  been  taken  into  consideration  in  this 
SWD6. 

2.  What was the expected outcome of the intervention? 

2.1 Description of the intervention and its objectives 

The Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) as it exists 
today was established by BEREC Regulation (EU) No 2018/1971 (BEREC Regulation), 
together with the Agency for the Support for BEREC (BEREC Office).  

They  succeeded  the  original  BEREC  organisation  and  the  Office.  The  latter  two-tier 
structure had been set up by Regulation (EC) No 1211/20097, as part of the 2009 Telecoms 
Reforms package, in order to ensure greater harmonisation of practices among the NRAs, 

5   Not yet published at the time of the adoption of the BEREC Review Report and the SWD.  

6      BoR (23) 114 BEREC input to the European Commission on the functioning of BEREC and the 
BEREC Office.pdf (europa.eu) 

7   Regulation (EC) 1211/2009 set up BEREC (Art.  1, BEREC shall contribute to the development and 
better functioning of the internal market for electronic communications networks and services, by aiming 
to ensure a consistent application of the EU regulatory framework for electronic communications) and 
the  Office  (Art.  6,  to  provide  professional  and  administrative  support  services  to  BEREC,  collect 
information  from  NRAs  and  exchange  and  transmit  information  in  relation  to  the  relevant  roles  and 
tasks, disseminate regulatory best practices among NRAs, assist the Chair in the preparation of the work 
of the Board of Regulators, and set up Expert Working Groups, upon request of the Board of Regulators, 
and provide support to ensure the smooth functioning of those Groups) 

2 

 
 
 
promote  an  effective  internal  market  in  this  sector,  and  act  as  an  exclusive  forum  for 
cooperation among NRAs, and between the Commission and NRAs. 

In order to contribute more to the development and better functioning of the internal market 
for electronic communications networks and services, BEREC had been tasked in 2009 to 
aim  to  ensure  a  consistent  application  of  the  EU  regulatory  framework  for  electronic 
communications. For this reason, BEREC was tasked, in particular, to contribute to the 
development and better functioning of the internal market for electronic communications 
networks and services, by aiming to ensure a consistent application of the EU regulatory 
framework for electronic communications. Moreover, BEREC was formally recognised as 
an  exclusive  forum  for  cooperation  among  NRAs,  and  between  the  Commission  and 
NRAs.  

The previous evaluation of the performances of BEREC and the BEREC Office undertaken 
under Regulation  (EC) 1211/20098 recognised BEREC’s considerable role in improving 
the harmonisation of practices between the Member States. However, it underscored the 
need for greater independence of BEREC from the influence of individual NRAs and for 
cultivating  a  more  unified  approach  to  improving  the  internal  market  for  electronic 
communications. In a similar vein, the ‘Impact Assessment Accompanying Proposals for a 
Directive  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  establishing  the  European 
Electronic Communications Code (Recast) and a Regulation of the European Parliament 
and  of  the  Council  establishing  the  Body  of  European  Regulators  for  Electronic 
Communications’9 (henceforth, the Impact Assessment), reported that BEREC, due to its 
institutional set-up, tended to prioritise greater flexibility or a lower common denominator, 
rather  than  striving  for  a  more  harmonised  application  of  the  European  regulatory 
framework, in particular as concerns the access-related regulatory intervention.  

In 2018, BEREC’s role was strengthened by the BEREC Regulation and Directive (EU) 
2018/1972, also known as the European Electronic Communications Code (EECC), the 
successor  of  the  2009  Telecoms  Reforms  Package.  BEREC’s  mandate  was  notably 
expanded  to  include  issuing  several  guidelines  on  a  number  of  subjects  with  a  view  to 
facilitate  the  harmonised  implementation  of  the  EECC,  as  well  as  establishing  and 
maintaining  specific  databases,  for  instance  on  numbering  and  general  authorisations. 
Collectively, these developments confirmed BEREC’s role as one of the key players in the 
EU  regulatory  framework  for  electronic  communications.  The  two-tier  structure  of 
BEREC  and  the  BEREC  Office  was  maintained  by  the  co-legislators,  while  the 
Commission  had  initially  proposed  to  expand  BEREC  on  the  model  of  a  decentralised 
agency. 

Like Member States, the NRAs, as well as the Commission and the Radio Spectrum Policy 
Group  (RSPG),  BEREC  is  pursuing  the  general  objectives  set  out  in  Article  3  of  the 
European Electronic Communications Code, that is: promoting connectivity and access to 
Very High-Capacity Networks (VHCN); promoting competition and efficient investment; 

8   SWD(2013) 152 final Commission Staff Working Document on the Evaluation Report of the Body of 
European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) and its office. Brussels, 23.4.2013. 

9   SWD/2016/0303 final/2 - 2016/0288 (COD), Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment 
Accompanying the document Proposals for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council 
establishing the European Electronic Communications Code (Recast) and a Regulation of the European 
Parliament  and  of  the  Council  establishing  the  Body  of  European  Regulators  for  Electronic 
Communications. 

3 

 
 
contributing  to  the  development  of  the  internal  market;  promoting  the  interests  of  the 
citizens of the Union. The objective of promoting connectivity was added in the EECC as 
electronic  communications  were  becoming  essential  for  the  economy  and  the  society 
overall.  Additionally,  BEREC  must,  according  to  Article  3  of  the  BEREC  Regulation, 
ensure in particular a consistent implementation of the regulatory framework for electronic 
communications (EECC, Roaming Regulation and Open Internet Regulation). 

The resulting 2018 organisational structure of BEREC can be summarised as follows. The 
Board  of  Regulators  consists  of  the  heads  of  NRAs  from  each  EU  Member  State  and 
participating NRAs from specific third countries, as well as the Commission. The Contact 
Network  serves  as  a  coordinating  entity,  bringing  together  senior  representatives  from 
those NRAs and the Commission. BEREC’s daily work is organised into working groups 
dedicated to specific topics outlined in the work programme. These WGs comprise experts 
from different NRAs and are guided by two co-Chairs elected for a two-year term. 

The BEREC Office is a decentralised EU Agency dedicated to delivering professional and 
administrative support to BEREC. The BEREC Office possesses a legal personality and 
maintains legal, administrative, and financial autonomy. Its main role is to facilitate the 
functioning  of  BEREC  by  providing  professional  and  administrative  support.  Its 
administrative support services encompass a wide array of responsibilities, including but 
not limited to organising meetings and events and managing documents and archives. The 
BEREC  Office  is  also  tasked  with  providing  professional  expertise  and  contributing  to 
BEREC’s regulatory work.  

The  organisational  structure  of  the  BEREC  Office  comprises  the  Management  Board, 
composed  of  the  members  from  the  Board  of  Regulators  and  a  high-level  Commission 
representative, and a director in charge of the administrative management of the BEREC 
Office.  

In line with the previous reviews and reforms (2009, 2018), should BEREC’s overall set of 
tasks and responsibilities change, this should be reflected in corresponding changes to the 
BEREC Office, in terms of human and financial resources, in order to enable it to continue 
supporting BEREC.  

2.2 BEREC and the BEREC Office’s intervention logic 

The intervention logic of BEREC and the BEREC Office developed for the purpose of the 
current  evaluation  study  is  shown  below.  The  intervention  logic  begins  with  the  needs 
underpinning  the establishment of BEREC and the BEREC Office  and is reconstructed 
from the four general objectives of BEREC outlined in Article 3 of the EECC. Next, the 
intervention  logic  continues  with  BEREC’s  specific  objective,  which  is  to  ensure 
consistent implementation of the European regulatory framework.  

Regulatory  tasks  of  BEREC  are  listed  in  Article  4  of  the  BEREC  Regulation.  These 
activities  contribute  to  specific  BEREC  results  and  contribute  to  the  achievement  of 
specific BEREC objectives. BEREC’s regulatory tasks consist foremost of assisting and 
advising the NRAs, the EU institutions, and being a forum for cooperation between NRAs 
themselves and the Commission. In particular, BEREC tasks include issuing opinions on 
many regulatory decisions (e.g., on resolution of cross border disputes, on draft national 
market  regulatory measures, on determination of single maximum termination rates, on 
national implementation and functioning of general authorisation. Moreover, BEREC is 
tasked  with  issuing  guidelines  on  a  range  of  specific,  often  complex  legal,  technical  or 

4 

 
economic  issues,  as  well  as  monitoring  and  collecting  market  information  and 
disseminating  it  to  the  public  and  may  also  issue  other  guidelines  ensuring  consistent 
implementation of the regulatory framework (at own initiative, or at the request of NRAs, 
European  Parliament,  the  Council  or  the  Commission).  Overall,  BEREC  tasks  are  to 
contribute to more consistent implementation of the European regulatory framework for 
electronic communications and therefore to a better functioning of the EU internal market 
for  electronic  communications  and 
the  electronic 
communications sector.  

innovation 

increased 

to 

in 

The BEREC Office’s tasks are listed in  Article 5 of the BEREC Regulation. Those are 
mainly  to  provide  professional  and  administrative  support  services  to  BEREC,  collect, 
process and disseminate information, assist in establishing and maintaining registries and 
databases, assist in preparation of work and administrative and content-related support to 
ensure the functioning of BEREC governing body (Board of Regulators) and the working 
groups.  

Given the separate legal set-up of the BEREC Office and that its main tasks relate to its 
supportive role vis a vis BEREC in achieving its regulatory tasks, the intervention logic 
indicates the BEREC Office as one of the inputs to BEREC. Other BEREC inputs include 
the  human  resources  contributed  to  BEREC  by  the  NRAs  (and  the  Commission).  The 
intervention logic also lists external factors that affect the achievement of the objectives 
and influence BEREC’s activities, such as international developments in the regulation of 
electronic communications10. 

3.  How has the situation evolved over the evaluation period? 

In keeping with its enhanced role, BEREC dedicated much attention at the beginning of 
the reporting period (2019-2020) to the development of several sets of technical guidelines 
related to the implementation of the EECC in particular, which NRAs would have to take 
into  account.  This  covered  a  broad  range  of  topics  such  as  network  termination  points, 
VHCN, geographical surveys, co-investments, as well open internet access. BEREC also 
started to establish databases dealing with e.g. authorisations and numbering, as provided 
for in the EECC. 

In total BEREC issued 10 guidelines in accordance with the EECC, on: Minimum Criteria 
for a Reference Offer; General Authorisation Notifications; Network Termination Point; 
Geographical Surveys of Network Deployments; Numbering Resources for non-ECN/non-
ECS;  Quality  of  Service;  Public  Warning  Systems;  Very  High  Capacity  Networks; 
Symmetric Access  Obligations; Co-Investment  Criteria11. While all those guidelines are 
high quality, very informative, elaborated with significant effort and preceded by public 
consultations and assessment of stakeholders inputs, they are ultimately drafted in a way 
to ensure NRAs flexibility. BEREC strives to reach consensus and accommodate national 
approaches, albeit formally the voting rules provide for simple majority (exceptionally for 

10   An interactive version of the intervention logic is available at: https://lucid.app/lucidspark/ddde6a03-
3dc1-40fb-8834-ccce2e632e25/edit?invitationId=inv_392d65a7-0dd8-4044-80b0-141ffb77d433  

11 

of 

presentation 

all  BEREC  Guidelines 

For 
https://www.berec.europa.eu/en/tasks/european-electronic-communications-
code?language_content_entity=en.  The  BEREC  Guidelines  on  Intra-EU  communications  (updated) 
stem from Article 5a of Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
25 November 2015, introduced by an amendment through the BEREC Regulation. 

the  EECC 

following 

from 

see: 

5 

 
 
qualified  majority)  and  allow  to  indicate  reservations/dissent.  By  way  of  example, 
important  Guidelines  on  the  Co-Investment  Criteria12    are  very  detailed  on  the  various 
elements  of  assessment  (e.g.,  models  of  co-investment,  timing,  openness  of  the  offer, 
lifetime  of  the  network),  but  they  do  not  provide  a  response  as  to  how  exactly  various 
criteria will be assessed by NRAs. Therefore, they left uncertainty for operators how to 
structure and design potential co-investment offers. Similarly, more technical Guidelines 
on the Network Termination Point13, delimiting the boundary of public networks, provide 
guidance as to aspects and elements to assess in such determination, leaving flexibility as 
to  the  actual  choice  among  various  options.  Also,  the  very  detailed  and  technically 
sophisticated Guidelines on Geographical Surveys of Network Deployments14, while very 
useful in terms of aligning the approaches and methodologies, ultimately did not lead to 
uniform  availability  of  information  about  fixed  and  mobile  network  deployment  and 
quality,  and  do  not  allow  for  comparability  across  Member  States.  Overall,  BEREC 
devoted  significant  resources  and  expertise  in  elaboration  of  the  guidelines,  which  in 
general  are  perceived  as  important  advice  supporting  NRAs  common  approaches. 
Nevertheless, while very helpful and informative, the guidelines alone were not sufficient 
to create a European single market in the communications sector.  

Like  many  organisations,  the  COVID-19  pandemic  prompted  BEREC  and  the  BEREC 
Office  to  move  most  activities  online,  which  they  did  quite  effectively  and  efficiently. 
Moreover, BEREC was asked additionally by the Commission to ensure regular oversight 
of the Internet traffic situation in each Member State to be able to respond swiftly to any 
capacity issues (which in the end did not occur), and to regularly report to the Commission.  

BEREC  international  cooperation  overall  has  gained  in  importance  over  the  reporting 
period. Western Balkans NRAs were invited to take part in the works of BEREC and the 
BEREC Office, in accordance with Article 35 of the BEREC Regulation. The same goes 
for the Ukrainian NRA since 2022 and Moldovan NRA since 2025. BEREC was also asked 
to  collect  and  report  data  related  to  the  Joint  Statement  by  EU  and  Ukrainian  mobile 
operators aimed at helping refugees from Ukraine stay connected15. 

Gradually, BEREC has paid attention to digital platforms and the digital economy more 
widely,  including  following  its  appointment  as  a  member  of  the  Digital  Markets  Act 
(DMA) High-level group in 2022, and the appointment of several NRAs as Digital Services 
Coordinators  in  the  context  of  the  Digital  Services  Act  (DSA).  Cybersecurity  has  been 
another  priority,  in  particular  since  the  development  of  the  5G  cybersecurity  Toolbox. 
Moreover,  BEREC  is  dedicated  to  fostering  new  technological  advancements,  and 
recognises  its  potential  role  under  the  Data  Act,  in  particular  with  regard  to  the 
implementation of cloud switching provisions, where it can be expected that at least some 

12   BEREC Guidelines to foster the consistent application of the conditions and criteria for assessing co-
investments in new very high capacity network elements (Article 76 (1) and Annex IV EECC), BoR 
(20) 232 

13   BEREC Guidelines on Common Approaches to the Identification of the Network Termination Point in 

different Network Topologies, BoR (20) 46 

14   BEREC Guidelines to assist NRAs on the consistent application of Geographical surveys of network 

deployments, BoR (20) 42 

15   Joint  Statement  initially  signed  in  April  2022,  subsequently  prolonged  until  31  December  2025, 

https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/joint-statement-eu-and-ukrainian-operators-help-
refugees-ukraine-stay-connected 

6 

 
 
NRAs could be appointed as competent authorities16. BEREC has also recognised the rapid 
advancements of AI. In March 2024 BEREC adopted its High-Level position on Artificial 
Intelligence and virtual worlds underlining the importance of very high capacity networks 
and  the  fact  that  cloud  services  and  edge  computing  are  increasingly  intertwined  with 
ECN/ECS, requiring a holistic approach and promoting responsible AI development and 
regulation. BEREC also elaborated several reports on the impact of AI on the telecoms 
sector. However, in these new fields, as well as in cybersecurity or spectrum, the competent 
authorities designated by Member States are not necessarily NRAs, and such new areas 
are often not reflected in the BEREC mandate at the EU level.  

Furthermore, the digital sector has been evolving significantly over the reporting period, 
and  new  players  are  entering  telecoms  or  adjacent  markets,  as  evidenced  by  the 
the  electronic 
Commission’s  2023  exploratory  consultation  on 
communications sector and its infrastructure17 and the responses to the Commission White 
Paper18.  

the  future  of 

First, as also recognised in the BEREC input to the White Paper19, new technologies such 
as  network  virtualisation,  edge  cloud,  artificial  intelligence  and  open  networks  have 
significant  impact  on  the  electronic  communications  sector.  Also  copper  networks  – 
initially designed for telephone calls – will have to give way to new infrastructures capable 
of transmitting gigabits and soon terabits of data per second. The sector is moving towards 
new  software-based,  highly  programmable,  cloud-native  networks.  This  transformation 
will have a significant impact on business and regulatory models, skills, infrastructures, 
security of vendors and, of course, investments. Other profound market changes observed 
by BEREC relate to emerging competition from other actors in the internet ecosystem (e.g., 
CAPs) and their investments in communication infrastructures (fixed cables, LEO satellite 
networks, and 5G private networks for businesses).    

Lastly, the study identifies areas where BEREC and its Office can play a key role in the 
implementation  of  the  Digital  Networks  Act,  by  taking  on  more  responsibilities  in  the 
framework of a new BEREC Regulation. 

4.  Evaluation findings (analytical part) 

The findings below mainly build on the support study commissioned by the Commission. 
They  also  take  into  account  BEREC’s  own  initiative  input  to  the  Commission  on  the 
functioning of BEREC and the BEREC Office in view of the evaluation under Article 48 

16   Data Act foresees that competent authorities for the implementation of cloud switching provisions shoud 

have experience in the field of data and electronic communications services. 

17 

18 

https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/results-exploratory-consultation-future-electronic-

communications-sector-and-its-infrastructure  

https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/white-paper-how-master-europes-digital-infrastructure-

needs 

19   BEREC’s  input  to  the  EC  public  consultation  on  the  White  Paper  “How  to  master  Europe’s  digital 

infrastructure needs?”, BoR (24) 100 

7 

 
 
of  the  BEREC  Regulation20.  The  Commission’s  conclusions  and  lessons  learned  are 
provided in Section 5 of the present Staff Working Document. 

4.1 To what extent was the intervention successful and why?  

[Related criteria to assess: effectiveness, efficiency, coherence] 

Generally speaking and based on evidence gathered in the context of the support study, 
one  can  say  that  BEREC  has  successfully  carried  out  the  tasks  assigned  to  it,  and  in 
accordance with the applicable legal framework. In particular, BEREC has developed the 
opinions,  guidelines,  databases  and  monitoring  reports  as  required  in  the  EECC  and 
relevant  Regulations,  in  particular  the  Roaming  Regulation  and  the  Open  Internet 
Regulation. 

An evaluation methodology was developed and used during the study. The methodology 
was  structured  around  five  main  components,  listed  below  (including  the  high  level 
characteristics for each component). 

Desk research, where the following documents were encoded and analysed: BEREC Work 
Programmes  for  2019-2023,  documents  shared  by  BEREC  Office  and/or  published 
covering  administrative  and  monitoring  data,  keyword-based  analysis  of  proposals  for 
legislative acts between 2019 and 2023 (for the European Commission), scanning adopted 
European Parliament texts with references to BEREC, and likewise for the Council. 

A number of interviews (57) were conducted with pertinent partners and stakeholders: 22 
NRAs, 9 with the BEREC Office, 9 with EU institutions, 4 with international bodies and 
networks, 2 with other related competent authorities and 11 with Industry and Consumer 
Organisations (including BEUC and European Disability Forum).  

Surveys were also  used,  targeted  at  NRAs and stakeholders,  respectively. The first  was 
structured in seven blocks: (1) an introductive section asking for the NRA’s information, 
(2) a section on BEREC’s achievement of objectives, (3) a block on BEREC’s efficiency, 
(4)  a  section  on  BEREC’s  impacts  and  added  value,  and,  similarly,  (5)  a  block  on  the 
BEREC  Office’s  achievement  of  objectives,  (6)  a  section  on  the  BEREC  Office’s 
efficiency,  and  a  final  block  on  (7)  the  BEREC  Office’s  added  value.  The  second  was 
structured  in  three  blocks:  (1)  an  introductive  section  asking  for  the  respondents’ 
information, (2) a section on the achievement of BEREC’s objectives, and a third one on 
(3) BEREC’s impact and added value. The two surveys were disseminated to 38 NRAs 
and 194 other stakeholders, where the latter were specifically 82 industry and consumers 
organisations,  21  international  bodies  and  networks,  85  other  national  competent 
authorities, and 6 representatives of EU bodies. In total, 66 replies were received: 28 from 
NRAs, 19 from  Industry and Consumers, 2 from  International  bodies and networks,  14 
from other competent authorities and 3 from individual respondents and/or individuals.  

To supplement the findings  of the study,  Participant observation  was also used, where 
some  external  BEREC  events  (virtual  workshops)  were  observed:  workshop  on 
the  EU,  workshop  on  switching  and 
international  submarine  connectivity 

in 

20 BoR (23) 114 BEREC input to the European Commission on the functioning of BEREC and the BEREC 
Office.pdf (europa.eu) 

8 

 
 
interoperability of data processing services, and workshop on end-users in the context of 
the Digital Markets Act (DMA).  

Finally, five Case studies were developed for the explicit purpose of the study supporting 
the  evaluation,  and  followed  the  data  collection  through  desk  research,  interviews  and 
surveys:  BEREC’s  work  on  the  Open  Internet  Regulation  guidelines,  BEREC’s  ad  hoc 
work  to  support  the  Ukrainian  NRA,  BEREC’s  work  on  cybersecurity  and  fruitful 
collaboration with ENISA, BEREC’s work on sustainability and BEREC’s role in Phase 
II process in line with Articles 32-33 of the EECC. 

According to the evaluation study, BEREC’s implementation support scoring is as follows: 

Regulatory output 

Guidelines 

Peer review contributions 

Recommendations, common positions, methodologies 
and dissemination of best practices 

Databases 

Completeness 

Effectiveness 

4 

5 

4 

4 

3 

4 

4 

2 

The  same  goes  for  the  BEREC  Office  that,  throughout  the  period  analysed,  provided 
administrative  support  to  BEREC.  The  sections  below  provide  an  overview  of  the 
performance  of  BEREC  and  the  BEREC  Office  across  the  better  regulation  evaluation 
criteria: effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence, and EU value added. 

a)  Effectiveness 

BEREC 

Overall,  stakeholders  point  to  the  consistently  high  quality  of  BEREC’s  outputs.  Its 
guidelines  are  effectively  aimed  at  supporting  the  implementation  of  the  regulatory 
framework  for  electronic  communications.  Moreover,  BEREC  is,  in  general,  able  to 
facilitate  and  coordinate  a  comprehensive  data  collection  effort  from  the  NRAs. 
Stakeholders  perceive  BEREC’s  outputs  as  authoritative  sources  of  information. 
Stakeholders, especially NRAs, also note the significance of BEREC’s role as a key forum 
for the exchange of best practices among NRAs.  

Evidence  gathered  in  the  support  study  shows  that,  overall,  BEREC  has  effectively 
contributed to fulfilling its tasks and meeting its objectives on a consistent basis over the 
reporting  period.  In  terms  of  output,  BEREC  has  developed  a  number  of  guidelines 
necessary  for  the  implementation  of  EU  instruments,  as  mentioned  before.  These 
guidelines are contributing to the four general objectives of the EECC and to the specific 
objective for BEREC to ensure consistent implementation of the relevant provisions by the 
NRAs.  According  to  the  support  study  and  interviews  with  stakeholders,  BEREC’s 
recommendations and common positions are generally well received, as well as its regular 
exchanges and dissemination of best practices. The same was considered by respondents 
as concerns BEREC participation in peer review meetings established by the RSPG (note 
the partial membership overlap between RSPG and BEREC on these issues), which have 

9 

 
allowed the relevant authorities to discuss with their peer spectrum assignments planned 
in  their  country.  However,  in  practice  BEREC  played  limited  role  in  the  peer  review 
process.  

Stakeholders are positive as regards the objective of promoting connectivity and access to 
VHCNs.  This  is  predominantly  attributed  to  the  role  of  BEREC  in  supporting  the 
implementation  of  EU  legislation,  such  as  the  delivery  of  the  BEREC  guidelines  on 
VHCN,  which  has  facilitated  the  establishment  of  a  common  understanding  and 
coordinates deployment of VHCNs across the EU. 

BEREC’s  contribution  to  the  promotion  of  competition  and  investment  is  also  judged 
positively, not least via its advisory role to the Commission and the NRAs in the process 
of ex ante regulation of the electronic communications market as outlined in Art. 32-33 of 
the  EECC.  BEREC  also  published  reports  analysing  the  latest  developments  in  the 
electronic communications market that may have an effect on its competition dynamics21. 
The picture is less positive regarding BEREC’s contribution to investment in connectivity, 
as  a  number  of  industry  representatives  consider  that  BEREC  takes  an  overly  pro-
regulatory approach in its opinions and guidelines, which, in their view, slows down the 
pace of private investment in connectivity on a European scale. 

While BEREC’s work, especially its guidelines and opinions, is also considered to have 
contributed to the development of the internal market, according to NRAs in particular, 
while  some  external  stakeholders  express  reservations  about  BEREC’s  effectiveness  in 
achieving a unified single market for electronic communications. According to some of 
the  interviewed  stakeholders  and  survey  participants,  BEREC’s  guidelines  should  be 
improved in terms of both quality, relevance, and scope. Industry representatives, as well 
as some interviewed NRAs and Commission officials, state that some of BEREC’s outputs 
seem to be aimed more at reconciling the national practices and circumstances of Member 
States,  rather  than  pursuing  Union-level  positions  on  regulatory  harmonisation.  This  is 
putting  a  limit  to  BEREC’s  track  record  on  its  specific  objective  to  aim  to  ensure  a 
consistent implementation of the relevant provisions by the NRA. 

NRAs tend to praise BEREC’s role in promoting the interests of the citizens of the Union, 
not least in the case of roaming or open internet, against just over one-third of external 
stakeholders stating that BEREC has fulfilled this objective either completely or to a large 
extent.  One  prominent  example  of  BEREC  positive  contribution  to  the  interests  of  EU 
citizens  is  its  role  in  monitoring  and  guiding  stakeholders  in  the  harmonised 
implementation of the Roaming Regulation. 

BEREC is, in general, able to facilitate and coordinate a comprehensive data collection 
effort from the NRAs. Nevertheless, in some cases – such as in the case of the database on 
access  to  emergency  services  –  seems  to  be  less  consistent.  Partially  due  to  different 
competences at national level, according to which NRAs are not necessarily competent for 
the matter of emergency services, the quality of the database is suboptimal and the inputs 
gathered at national level are not necessarily consistent, to the ultimate detriment of end-
users.  In  turn,  this  has  an  impact  on  the  contribution  of  BEREC  to  a  consistent 
implementation of the regulatory framework. 

21 BEREC Report on the Internet Ecosystem; BEREC Report on the ex-ante regulation of digital gatekeepers. 

10 

 
 
BEREC’s effectiveness builds on several strengths, e.g., its independence and fact-based 
decision-making. Regarding independence, NRAs point out that their own independence 
regarding  financial  and  human  resources  has  been  and  remains  a  crucial  aspect  for  the 
smooth and coherent work of BEREC as it affects the share of resources NRAs can allocate 
to BEREC in addition to national work. Safeguarding NRAs’ independence at the national 
level is an important determinant of BEREC’s effectiveness. 

On the other hand, BEREC’s effectiveness might be limited by other factors. According to 
Article 5 of the BEREC Regulation, BEREC is composed of NRAs, while not all the tasks 
entrusted to BEREC are within the responsibilities of its member NRAs at the national 
level (e.g., emergency communications, public warning systems, spectrum management, 
management  of  numbering  resources, 
infrastructure  mapping,  or  cybersecurity). 
Moreover, since new responsibilities from outside the EECC and BEREC Regulation are 
not  necessarily  granted  to  NRAs,  BEREC  cannot  always  rely  on  the  experience  and 
expertise  of  all  of  its  members  when  implementing  (new)  tasks  entrusted  to  it22.  This 
specific  situation  –  which  requires  coordination  between  the  NRA  and  the  national 
competent authority – has led to shortcomings in some cases, as in the case of emergency 
communications database. Hence, it is increasingly crucial to enhance collaboration with 
knowledgeable authorities outside of NRAs in the electronic communications field and to 
improve the skills of NRAs. This is particularly important as digital regulation currently 
expands  beyond  the  traditional  telecommunications  sector,  and  some  but  not  all  NRAs 
might have competences under the Data Act (implementation of cloud switching), DMA, 
or be designated authority under DSA. Enhancing coordination and sharing information 
between NRAs and other competent authorities, or involving the latter in BEREC's work, 
would enhance its effectiveness.  

The developments in the digital sector are prompting BEREC and its members at national 
level to be increasingly involved in areas at the margins of traditional telecommunications. 
At  the  same  time,  not  all  NRAs  are  tasked  with  new  responsibilities  in  areas  such  as 
cybersecurity  or  digital  markets  and  services.  This  may  result  in  multiple  national 
authorities operating in areas of interest for BEREC, which might undermine BEREC’s 
effectiveness in spite of coordination at national level.  

In its self-assessment, BEREC confirms that constraints like differences in competences at 
NRAs’  level  as  well  as  available  resources  can  affect  BEREC’s  capacity  ‘to  foster 
regulatory consistency throughout the subjects covered by the EECC, to the detriment of 
the internal market for electronic communications and users’ rights’. Moreover, evidence 
suggests  that  BEREC’s  sometimes  relative  adaptability  to  the  convergence  of  the 
traditional  telecommunications  market  and  the  larger  digital  ecosystem  may  impact  its 
effectiveness. For instance, evidence gathered in the support study suggests that in some 
areas  related  to  the  regulation  of  digital  markets,  BEREC  has  taken  a  more  traditional 
telecoms  market  view  (e.g.,  BEREC’s  opinion  on  the  Gigabit  Recommendation  and 
BEREC’s  preliminary  assessment  of  the  underlying  assumptions  of  payments  by  large 

22   Eg. BEREC participates in the High-Level Group established under Art.40 of the DMA, alongside other 
bodies such as European Competition Network, Consumer Protection Cooperation Network, EDPS and 
EDPB. High Level Group provides advice and expertise to the Commission to ensure that DMA and 
other  sectoral  regulations  applicable  to  gatekeepers  are  implemented  in  a  coherent  way.  Similarly, 
certain provisions of the Data Act, namely those related to cloud switching (art. 23 to 31, and art.34-35) 
should  be  enforced  by  competent  authorities  with  experience  in  the  field  of  data  and  electronic 
communications services; it is to be expected that many BEREC members may be assigned with such 
competences. 

11 

 
 
CAPs to ISPs), driven also in part by the different competences in different NRAs, which 
in turn does not allow BEREC to adapt to changes in the digital market in a quick way. 

On the other hand, BEREC had been able to quickly adjust and take upon new tasks in 
view of external developments. External factors like the COVID-19 pandemic, Russia’s 
full-scale invasion of Ukraine, or Brexit at the time, have had an impact on BEREC’s work. 
COVID-19 did not only disrupt the organisation’s day-to-day activities and functionality 
moving most activities online. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Commission services 
also  asked  BEREC  to  monitor  market  developments,  address  network  congestion,  and 
provide weekly reports on the internet capacity status23. This effective monitoring allowed 
for responding quickly to any capacity issues, which, in the end, did not prove necessary.  

In  relation  to  Ukraine,  BEREC  was  also  engaged,  on  request  of  the  Commission,  in 
collecting and reporting data on the measures taken in line with the framework of the Joint 
Statement by EU and Ukrainian operators aimed at helping refugees from Ukraine stay 
connected. This should also be underlined as an example of flexibility and effectiveness of 
BEREC. 

BEREC Office 

Evidence gathered in the support study generally shows that the BEREC Office has been 
effective in providing support to BEREC, particularly by supporting NRAs in their roles 
as WGs co-chairs, organising BEREC’s internal and external events as well as supporting 
the  preparation  of  BEREC’s  data  collection  activities.  According  to  consulted  NRAs 
participating in BEREC, which are the main beneficiary of the BEREC Office’s support 
services, the Agency is well organised and is able to provide high-quality administrative 
support, including to the Contact Network and the Board of Regulators. 

The figure below shows NRAs’ views on how well the BEREC Office responded to the 
needs of BEREC and their NRAs. 

23  See  for  example:  https://www.berec.europa.eu/en/document-categories/berec/reports/berec-summary-

report-on-the-status-of-internet-capacity-in-light-of-the-covid-19-crisis-3  

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2. NRAs’ views on how well the BEREC Office responded to the needs of BEREC 
and their NRAs 

Being  a  small  agency,  the  question  of  balancing  administrative  tasks  with  other  more 
substance  tasks  remains  a  challenge,  including  coping  with  requests  for  more  data 
management and data analysis. According to data shared by the BEREC Office, over 40% 
of the BEREC Office’s workload was dedicated to horizontal activities associated with the 
management, staffing, procurement and ICT-related aspects of the BEREC Office. 

In  increasingly  important  areas  such  as  data  collection  and  analysis,  there  is  a  BEREC 
demand for additional professional support to be provided by the BEREC Office.  

Having  demonstrated  resilience  and  adaptability  to  new  tasks,  the  BEREC  Office  has 
shown that, with added support, it could well take on more tasks. 

b)  Efficiency 

BEREC 

According to the support study, with its organisational structure (regular meetings of the 
Board  of  Regulators,  Contact  Network,  working  groups),  its  rules  of  procedures,  its 
multiannual strategies, its annual work programmes and project requirements documents, 
BEREC is considered by stakeholders as a body with relatively clear and straightforward 
organisation, governance and procedures. Yet it allows for flexibility when necessary. This 
was effectively  needed, for instance, to  deal  with  periods of high  workload such as the 
2019-2020 period  following  the adoption of the  EECC when BEREC had to  develop  a 
number of guidelines to facilitate the implementation of the EECC –  or unexpected work 
such as during Covid-19 pandemic. Also, in the 2019-2022 period, around one-fourth of 
the  tasks  were  related  to  assisting  and  advising  the  European  Commission  on  new 
initiatives like the Roaming Regulation or the Digital Markets Act, while a big majority of 
tasks (70%) were on BEREC’s own initiative. This has led to re-prioritisation of work and 
delay of less urgent tasks such as non-mandatory, prospective reports, with no significant 
impact on the quality of outputs.  

13 

 
 
 
Figure 3. Share of BEREC ad hoc tasks by the initiative side for 2019-2022 

Moreover, BEREC and the BEREC Office have rearranged or created working groups to 
deal  with  new  developments,  for  instance  to  deal  with  digital  markets  or  sustainability 
issues.  However,  the  respective  workload  of  the  various  working  groups  is  not  always 
balanced.  

Collaboration between working groups and the implementation of bottom-up processes, 
whereby NRAs can set up ad hoc working groups, or develop ad hoc work within existing 
working  groups,  are  overall  viewed  as  efficient  and  flexible.  Nevertheless,  industry 
representatives  sometimes  emphasised  discrepancies  in  BEREC’s  work.  Examples 
provided by respondents include the preliminary assessment of the underlying assumptions 
regarding payments from large CAPs to internet service providers and the Report on the 
Internet ecosystem, both published at the end of 2022. While the working groups preparing 
them  could  have  benefitted  from  cooperation  and  synergy  since  they  were  covering 
overlapping  themes,  the  reports  did  not  appear  to  take  each  other’s  conclusions  into 
account and most of this work was done in parallel. 

It  is  worth  noting  that  BEREC’s  efficacy  is  heavily  reliant  on  NRAs’  resources,  while 
NRAs from larger and smaller countries differ in terms of resources that they are able to 
mobilise for planned or unexpected work. NRAs tend to allocate, on average, around 4-6 
FTEs  to  activities  related  to  BEREC.  However,  this  can  range  from  1  FTE  in  small 
countries or during calmer summer periods to around 7-10 FTEs for some NRAs during 
busier  periods.  The  total  working  time  allocated  to  BEREC  activities  by  the  NRAs  is 
presented below:  

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4. Total working time allocated by the NRAs to BEREC activities  

Moreover, NRAs’ varying competences including on cybersecurity, digital markets, radio 
spectrum and consumer-related issues, are affecting BEREC’s efficacy (cf. effectiveness) 
despite  the  requirement  to  coordinate  (Article  5  EECC).  This  situation,  despite  being 
admittedly  difficult  to  address  from  the  EU-level  perspective,  remains  a  significant 
challenge for BEREC, which, with new competences in new fields, needs to be addressed. 

BEREC Office 

Being among the smallest EU agencies, the BEREC Office strives to provide support to 
BEREC  as  efficiently  as  possible  within  its  budgetary  and  human  resources  limits. 
According  to  the  evaluation  study  findings,  the  BEREC  Office  achieved  most  of  its 
assigned objectives on time and with high efficiency, which is reflected in the study survey 
by the fact that 96% of surveyed NRAs believe that the BEREC Office’s outputs are timely.  

The NRAs’ perceptions on various aspects linked to the efficiency of the BEREC Office 
are presented on the figure below.  

15 

 
 
 
Figure  5.  NRAs’  perceptions  on  various  aspects  linked  to  the  efficiency  of  the  BEREC 
Office  

In its own assessment, BEREC points out two main constraints: high staff turnover (over 
16% in 2022) and resourcing of the BEREC Office. To ensure efficient delivery and to 
address  its capacity constraints, the BEREC Office uses several  approaches. It  includes 
both  external  staff  (contract  staff  and  seconded  national  experts)  and  outsourcing  the 
provision of several services to Commission services and to a ‘Liaison Office’ established 
with  the  Latvian  government.  Commission  services  have,  on  a  regular  basis,  raised  the 
inconsistency of some of these practices, including in its opinion(s) on the BEREC draft 
Single Programming Document(s). 

c)  Coherence 

Stakeholders and the partner DG (DG Connect) in their responses for the purpose of the 
support  study  are  satisfied  overall  with  existing  coordination  mechanisms  and  the 
delineation between BEREC, the BEREC Office, and the European Commission. 

BEREC operates in synergy with other European agencies and EU bodies. For example, 
BEREC collaborates with the RSPG through the Peer Review Forum, albeit in practice 
only  in  a  limited  extent.  Given  market  and  regulatory  developments,  BEREC  has  also 
increasingly  been  cooperating  with,  and  supporting,  the  European  Union  Agency  for 
Cybersecurity 
the  cybersecurity  of  electronic 
related 
communications networks. In contrast, while BEREC may carry out its tasks as necessary 
in cooperation with any other Union bodies, agencies, offices and advisory groups, it has 
not  developed  so  far  much  cooperation  with  bodies  like  the  European  Data  Protection 
Board  (EDPB)  or  the  European  Regulators  Group  for  Audiovisual  Media  Services 
(ERGA). 

(ENISA)  on 

issues 

to 

16 

 
 
In 2022, BEREC has been designated as a member of the Digital Markets Act High Level 
Group24 established pursuant to the DMA. This High-Level Group, which also comprises 
EBMS, ECN, CPC Network, EDPS  and the EDPB, and provides the Commission  with 
advice and expertise to ensure that the DMA and other sectoral regulations applicable to 
gatekeepers are implemented in a coherent and complementary manner. 

In  situations  when  overlaps  exist,  they  are  mainly  justified  by  cooperative  work  and 
synergies between the organisations in question. Potential overlaps between BEREC and 
other  organisations  are  generally  well  addressed;  this  is  done,  for  instance,  via  the 
appointment of contact points for liaising with other bodies.  

Against  this  background,  one  issue  (already  flagged  above)  is  the  relative  mismatch 
between the tasks of the NRAs and the tasks of BEREC, where BEREC is expected to 
issue opinions or advice in areas for which not all its NRA members are competent, or, 
reversely,  where  BEREC  would  not  have  any  coordination  role  regarding  matters 
addressed by a significant portion of its members.  

No overlaps between other EU bodies and organisations and the BEREC Office have been 
identified, as its primary purpose is essentially to provide professional and administrative 
support to BEREC. 

Moreover, concerning spectrum management, although a considerable portion of BEREC 
members handle spectrum issues at the national level, both BEREC and the BEREC Office 
are tackling authorisation matters in various ways. However, their involvement in spectrum 
issues  has  been  limited  thus  far,  such  as  through  participation  in  RSPG  peer  reviews, 
mainly due to limited use of the peer reviews.  

Should  these  tasks  (spectrum  authorisation)  be  internalised  in  a  new  BEREC/BEREC 
Office structure, the resources should be increased accordingly. 

4.2 How did the EU intervention make a difference and to whom? 

[Related criterion to assess: EU added value] 

According to the support study, BEREC is an essential player in the implementation of the 
electronic communications market, not least because it brings together expertise from 27 
NRAs. A majority of stakeholders responding to the support study highlighted BEREC’s 
EU  added  value  in  the  development  of  guidelines  and  methodologies  for  the 
implementation  of  the  EU  regulatory  framework  for  electronic  communications. 
Guidelines are developed collectively, which makes it easier for NRAs to implement them 
at  the national  level once adopted. BEREC also  adds value to  the NRAs as  a forum to 
informally exchange experiences and knowledge. BEREC also delivers added value to the 
European  institutions,  thanks  to  its  monitoring  reports  and  expert  inputs  on  technical 
topics. 

BEREC is also able to mobilise its expertise in an efficient manner and to deliver opinions 
to the Commission in a relatively short time frame. This applies for BEREC’s opinions as 
part  of  the  Phase  II  process,  according  to  which  NRAs  are  required  to  analyse  the 
Commission’s serious doubts regarding individual NRAs’ decisions concerning markets 

24 

https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/digital-markets-act-commission-creates-high-level-group-
provide-advice-and-expertise-implementation  

17 

 
 
for  electronic  communications  that  may  need  ex  ante  regulation25.  In  years  2018-2024 
BEREC issued 13 such opinions, in principle 1 per year, with the exceptions of years 2018 
and  2022  (4  opinions  in  each).  These  opinions  are  timely  and  valuable  inputs  to  the 
Commission’s final decisions but they are not binding on the Commission (‘should take to 
the utmost account’). 

BEREC  benefits  from  the  collective  expertise  of  the  NRAs  and  is  able  to  offer  expert 
advice and input to the Commission’s legislative process on various topics related to the 
electronic  communications  market.  This  is  also  why  BEREC  assists  and  advises  the 
Commission,  upon  request  or  on  its  own  initiative  (e.g.,  providing  inputs  to  public 
consultations), in relation to the preparation of legislative proposals. In years 2018-2025 
(July) BEREC has delivered a total of 46 opinions in support of the EU policy-making 
process over the reporting period.) Generally speaking, BEREC has been responsive and 
offered valuable inputs to the policy process.  

However, the inputs from BEREC to the legislative process were not always timely. Note 
that in its self-assessment, BEREC commits to keep providing its input at an early stage of 
the Commission’s decision-making processes via consultation mechanisms separate from 
general stakeholder consultations. 

Finally, over the reporting period, a significant number of third-country NRAs, including 
from  the  EEA  EFTA  countries,  the  Western  Balkans,  and  most  recently  Ukraine  and 
Moldova, have been invited to participate without voting rights in the work of BEREC and 
the BEREC Office, in keeping with respective EU international agreements to that effect. 
This is next to international cooperation with networks of NRAs in other regions of the 
world, selected individual NRAs or international organisations. This participation can be 
essential for regulatory cooperation and overall alignment with Union law in the area. At 
the same time, it is also putting additional pressure on the organisation. 

4.3 Is the intervention still relevant? 

Overall, according to the support study, BEREC is widely acknowledged as an important 
player in ensuring the implementation of the European regulatory framework for electronic 
communications. Moreover, stakeholders highlight the significance of BEREC’s function 
as a single forum for EU NRAs.  

However,  the  question  whether  objectives  and  tasks  correspond  to  current  needs  is 
answered differently depending on the stakeholder group. NRAs overall view BEREC as 
relevant  to  their  current  needs,  as  presented  on  the  figure  below.  BEREC  provides 
guidance, addresses new legislation, allows sharing of best practice, and supports NRAs’ 
work at national level. It is also a representative ‘unifying’ all NRAs in the EU. This is 
particularly the case for smaller NRAs.  

25   The three elements analysed are: market definition, Significant Market Power (SMP) assessment and 
decision  on  remedies.  More  information  here:  https://www.berec.europa.eu/en/berec/article-3233-
former-article-77a  

18 

 
 
Figure  6.  NRAs’  views  on  the  extent  to  which  opinions,  guidelines,  reports  and  best 
practices provided by BEREC are relevant to their NRA 

However,  several  developments  raise  questions  about  BEREC’s  (future)  relevance  to  a 
certain  extent:  the  evolving  electronic  communications  landscape,  different  national 
contexts,  the  diverging  competences  of  the  NRAs,  and  further  integration  of  electronic 
communications markets, calling more for broadening of its tasks and pointing towards 
increased EU relevance.  

The regulatory toolbox may need to be updated to accommodate market and technological 
changes, potentially involving a broader use of harmonised tools, such as access products, 
and even less  frequently used tools, like resolving cross-border disputes,  could  become 
more  important.  In  this  context,  while  BEREC's  current  responsibilities  are  primarily 
advisory in nature, there is a question about how the mandate of BEREC and the BEREC 
Office could be adjusted to take on new responsibilities in the digital field. 

As part of the varying national contexts and technological and market changes, some NRAs 
are mentioning the varying rates of implementation of the European regulatory framework 
for electronic communications and disparities in innovation levels within the digital sector. 
Some  NRAs  note  that  their  interest  in  addressing  emerging  issues  within  the  scope  of 
electronic communications and digital markets does not always find broad support among 
other NRAs. Furthermore, the data suggests that variations in national contexts may lead 
to not all NRAs perceiving BEREC as equally relevant to their needs. 

BEREC  is  committed  to  staying  on  top  of  emerging  developments  in  the  electronic 
communications sector and aims to revise its activities regularly to reflect this. BEREC 
has adapted its work programme and created several new WGs to deal with areas such as 
cybersecurity,  digital  markets  and  sustainability.  BEREC  has  also  recently  adopted  its 
Strategy  2026-30,  which  outlines  BEREC’s  priorities  and  action  areas  in  the  coming 
years26.  

However,  the  digital  communications  sector  is  developing  rapidly.  Various  bodies  and 
institutions from Member States, including most NRAs, received new responsibilities, for 
example, in the governance framework of DSA, DMA, and Data Act. While BEREC must 

26   BEREC  Strategy  2026-30  https://www.berec.europa.eu/en/all-documents/berec/berec-strategies-and-

work-programmes/berec-strategy-2026-2030  

19 

 
 
 
also aim to ensure a consistent implementation of the European regulatory framework, the 
limited correspondence between NRAs’ competences at national level and BEREC’s tasks 
is  challenging  the  relevance  of  BEREC  to  a  certain  extent,  in  a  number  of  new  digital 
regulation areas in particular e.g. DMA, DSA, Data Act, and cybersecurity.  

According  to  the  evaluation  support  study,  BEREC’s  recent  work  on  digital  markets 
appears to be less relevant to a number of industry and consumer representatives. Industry 
representatives,  in  particular,  highlight  BEREC’s  handling  of  digital  platforms  and 
number-independent  interpersonal  communication  as  examples  of  a  preference  for 
traditional  regulatory  approaches  over  adapting  to  the  evolving  landscape  of  the  digital 
sector.  

Strengthening  BEREC  and  the  BEREC  Office  could  address  some  of  these  problems, 
while at the same time creating synergies that could, when made operational, improve the 
impact and lessen the existing overhead, be it in inter-NRA coordination or cooperation 
with the Commission, industry stakeholders and other interested parties.  

5.  What are the conclusions and lessons learned? 

Building on the evaluation findings, this section presents the main conclusions and lessons 
drawn by the Commission from the evaluation.  

5.1 To what extent was the intervention successful? 

Effectiveness 

BEREC  

In general, BEREC has been in general effective in delivering on its main objectives, i.e., 
promoting  connectivity  and  access  to  Very  High-Capacity  Networks,  promoting 
competition  and  efficient  investment,  contributing  to  the  development  of  the  internal 
market, promoting the interests of the citizens of the Union.  

The  contribution  of  NRAs  is  essential  in  this  respect.  Safeguarding  their  independence 
from  political  influences  and  from  other  stakeholders,  is  and  remains  an  important 
determinant of BEREC’s effectiveness in implementing the regulatory framework.  

Nevertheless, the new responsibilities granted to BEREC members in, for instance, digital 
markets,  cybersecurity  or  spectrum,  are  not  always  adequately  reflected  in  BEREC’s 
mandate. Moreover, since these new responsibilities granted to BEREC members are not 
always reflected in BEREC’s mandate, BEREC cannot always rely on the experience and 
expertise  of  its  members  when  implementing  (new)  tasks  entrusted  to  it.  In  the 
Commission’s view, better coordination and exchange of information between NRAs and 
other competent authorities, as well as upskilling of NRAs, or the direct involvement of 
these  competent  authorities  in  the  work  of  BEREC,  would  further  improve  its 
effectiveness.  

Better cooperation with other competent authorities is becoming even more important as 
digital  regulation  is  extending  beyond  the  traditional  telecommunications  sector. 
Moreover, consulted NRAs state that there may be a need to reevaluate BEREC’s priorities 
and  strategy  towards  its  activities  related  to  digital  regulation.  Further,  according  to 
BEREC Strategy 2025-30, BEREC remains committed to provide advice and guidance in 

20 

 
the forthcoming digital frameworks, namely the DNA and the Cloud and AI Development 
Act, along with existing regulations such as the Data Act or the DMA.  

In this context and taking into account, notably, the results of the exploratory consultation 
on  the  future  of  the  electronic  communications  sector  and  its  infrastructure,  it  is  also 
important for BEREC to respond to the convergence of the traditional telecoms market and 
the wider digital ecosystem.  

In  the  Commission’s  view,  BEREC  could  also  play  a  more  active  role  in  coordinating 
NRAs’ activities to  promote a more harmonised approach to  the implementation  of the 
European regulatory framework for electronic communications in line with Article 3 of 
the  BEREC  Regulation,  in  order  to  create  a  truly  single  market  for  electronic 
communications in the EU. The BEREC Guidelines on Geographical surveys of network 
deployments  can  serve  as  an  example  of  a  BEREC  output  where  the  single  market 
dimension could be strengthened. While useful in other respects, the  guidelines did not 
include clear guidance on quality of service under peak time conditions, which effectively 
prevents comparing network performance in Member States or across the EU, making it 
difficult to identify areas where public/state aid intervention would be needed.  

BEREC Office 

Generally  speaking,  the  BEREC  Office  has  been  successfully  providing  administrative 
support  to  BEREC,  in  particular  WGs  (co-chaired  by  NRAs),  even  during  periods  of 
increased  workload  (moving  operations  online  during  the  COVID  pandemic)  or  when 
having  to  adapt  to  significant  global  events,  such  as  the  Russia  war  of  aggression  on 
Ukraine. 

Nevertheless,  the  Commission  shares  the  view  of  many  NRAs  that  the  BEREC  Office 
should provide additional professional  support and, in  particular, a more  central  role in 
data collection and analysis. It is important to note that these tasks require a different setup 
and possibly additional resources  for the BEREC Office.  

This could be an important development in the BEREC Office’s role, as demand for data 
analytics,  and  better  understanding  of  technological  trends  and  their  determinants  are 
essential for BEREC to fulfil its role, now and in the foreseeable future. In addition, by 
having BEREC Office take on a role of providing more substance-oriented work, when at 
the  same  time  coordinating  NRA  work  on  EU  level,  effectiveness  would  be  greatly 
enhanced. 

Finally,  the  BEREC  Office  effectively  supports  BEREC  and  contributes  to  the  overall 
coordination.  It  is  difficult  to  see  how  the  EU  Member  State  NRAs  would  coordinate 
without  the  Office,  which  shows  an  EU-added  value.  However,  the  Office  needs  to  be 
stricter  in  adhering  to  numbers  approved  by  the  budgetary  authority  as  concerns  the 
budgetary and human resource matters. It also needs to build its own expertise to be able 
to support BEREC on content-related issues, as well as provide more substance oriented 
work going beyond the more limited administrative and operational support provided so 
far. 

21 

 
 
 
Efficiency 

BEREC 

BEREC  is  generally  considered  as  an  organisation  with  a  clear  and  straightforward 
organisation, governance and procedures, yet relatively flexible. 

Nevertheless, according to interviewed and surveyed NRA representatives, the frequent 
reliance on bigger NRAs for leading BEREC working groups, coupled with the mentioned 
asymmetry  in  NRAs’  competences,  might  challenge  the  representativeness  of  specific 
BEREC outputs. The related issue of NRAs’ respective knowledge in specific areas is also 
relevant in this respect.   

Partly  to  offset  this  issue,  processes  and  procedures  at  BEREC  could  be  improved  by 
requesting  more  content-related  support  from  the  BEREC  Office,  provided  the  right 
profiles are recruited.  

In any event, the changes in the positions of the working groups’ co-chairs, or, indeed, the 
creation  of  new  working  groups  to  deal  with  new  issues,  is  prompting  the  question  of 
training new co-chairs. 

In the Commission’s view, the number of WGs and the delineation of tasks between them 
could also be usefully assessed not only in the context of the developments in the sector, 
but also to avoid possible overlaps between topics covered and sometimes, inconsistent 
views emerging on the same issues. Several interviewed and surveyed NRAs pointed out 
that  better  work  distribution  between  plenary  sessions  could  improve  the  efficiency  of 
BEREC and the BEREC Office.   

Also,  since  ad  hoc  work  is  an  inevitable  part  of  BEREC’s  tasks  in  a  fast-changing 
environment, better coordination, planning, and advance notice from EU institutions could 
enable more effective task delivery. Note that ad hoc work is also decided on BEREC’s 
own initiative, with mixed results.  

BEREC Office  

Being among the smallest EU agencies, the BEREC Office strives to provide support to 
BEREC as efficiently as possible within its budgetary constraints. The BEREC Office – 
and  its  Management  Board  –  is,  however,  regularly  deviating  from  the  Commission’s 
guidance on staff to recruit more staff members.   

At the same time, there is a relatively high  rate of staff turnover at the BEREC Office, 
mostly visible for external staff dealing with administrative tasks. This turnover leads to 
continuity issues, including retaining knowledge. It therefore seems crucial to strengthen 
the Agency, so that it can both attract and retain talent, especially if the job profiles were 
to be more substance oriented and less operational in nature. 

The BEREC Office should address these issues in order to be more efficient, in the context 
of  the  current  setup  according  to  the  Regulation  in  force.  This  could  be  done  through 
reorganisation  of  functions  inside  the  Agency,  as  well  as  closer  collaboration  with  the 
Commission  services  or  other  decentralised  agencies  (as  was  the  case  in  the  past  with 
ENISA, and  DG DIGIT) in  order to  cope with more administrative tasks.  During  2025 
BEREC  Office  also  cooperated  with  other  decentralised  Agencies  located  in  the  Baltic 

22 

 
region (European Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT Systems in the 
area  of  freedom,  security  and  justice,  and  European  Institute  for  Gender  Equality)  on 
aspects which are common. Furthermore, being a member of the Commission’s Network 
of  Agencies,  BEREC  Office  has  a  platform  to  seek  synergies  in  how  administrative 
problems are addressed.  

As a matter of fact, providing more content-related support, e.g. on data analysis and report 
drafting,  could  imply  changing  the  emphasis  from  mostly  administrative  tasks  to  more 
content-related  tasks,  hence  making  the  overall  balance  between  operational    and 
administrative support tasks more appropriate. This could make the BEREC Office a more 
attractive  employer.  Any  potential  increase  in  content-related  support  may  need  to  be 
accompanied  by  a  corresponding  increase  in  human  resources.  In  any  event,  it  will  be 
important that the BEREC Management Board addresses human and financial resources 
issues  in  accordance  with  the  overall  framework  for  European  agencies  and  uses  the 
resources efficiently. 

The BEREC Office manages several tools used to exchange information with BEREC and 
the  Commission  services.  BERECNet+,  the  IT  system  at  the  heart  of  BEREC  and  the 
BEREC Office, has been found to be difficult to use. 

Coherence 

There is a relative and growing mismatch between the tasks of the NRAs and the tasks of 
BEREC. BEREC is sometimes asked or keen to issue opinions or advice in areas for which 
not  all  its  NRA  members  are  competent  e.g.  sustainability,  cybersecurity,  platforms. 
Conversely, BEREC sometimes does not necessarily have any formal EU coordination role 
regarding matters addressed by an increasing portion of its member NRAs (e.g., under Data 
Act,  or  Data  Governance  Act).  This  is  pleading  for  more  effective  coordination  and 
exchange of information at EU and/or national level, between NRAs and other competent 
authorities, or for the direct involvement of the other competent authorities in the work of 
BEREC, which has proven to be challenging over the reporting period. 

In  the  Commission’s  view,  even  if  some  asymmetries  of  competences  at  national  level 
might undermine the coherence of BEREC in some instances, BEREC should also adapt 
its outputs to emerging topics such as cybersecurity, digital matters or sustainability, which 
are addressed in the EU policies and legal instruments. Coherence can best be achieved by 
central  coordination,  which  BEREC  and  the  BEREC  Office  are  in  the  best  position  to 
achieve on an EU scale. 

5.2 Did the EU intervention make a difference (EU added value)? 

By bringing together expertise from 27 NRAs, BEREC is and remains an important actor, 
in  particular  for  NRAs  and  EU  institutions,  in  the  implementation  of  the  electronic 
communications market and harmonisation.  

In  this  regard,  BEREC’s  contribution  to  fostering  regulatory  consistency,  hence  the 
internal market for electronic communications and end-users, should be strengthened. 

BEREC’s opinions generally offer valuable inputs to NRAs and the EU policy process, but 
BEREC’s views and opinions issued on its own initiative in the context of policy-making 
process  should  be  better  coordinated  with  the  overall  aims  of  the  EU  institutions  as 

23 

 
otherwise they may carry the risk of sending conflicting signals. The same applies to some 
of BEREC’s interventions in inter-institutional negotiations.  

This would plead for finding the appropriate ways and timing for the Commission or other 
institutions  to  collect  BEREC’s  views.  The  same  applies  to  some  of  BEREC’s 
interventions  into  inter-institutional  negotiations.  BEREC’s  current  mandate,  which  is 
making  a  difference  between,  on  the  one  hand,  assistance,  upon  request  or  on  its  own 
initiative,  on  technical  matters  regarding  electronic  communications  matters  within  its 
competence, and, on the other hand, assistance, on the Commission’s request, in relation 
to the preparation of legislative proposals in the field of electronic communications may 
not be clear enough. This would need to be evaluated should the BEREC mandate foresee 
further and more advanced tasks. 

Moreover, BEREC’s expertise needs to be sustained, deepened and broadened, in view of 
the  rapidly  evolving  electronic  communications  and  digital  markets,  and  despite  any 
diverging powers of its members at national level.  

Finally,  the  increasing  number  of  participants  from  third  country  NRAs,  on  one  hand 
allows for broader exchange of best practices and promotion of the single market and EU 
value but on the other hand implies reflecting on the respective role and organisation of 
BEREC  regarding  EU  (members  with  voting  rights)  and  non-EU  NRAs  (participants 
without voting rights). Furthermore some ‘historical’ participation of either NRAs from 
third countries that do not meet the criteria for the participation without voting rights or 
other  organisations,  require  clarification  to  ensure  effective  functioning  of  BEREC.  A 
comprehensive list of BEREC membership and the status of represented counties is given 
in a footnote.27 

Additionally,  it  is  important  to  promote  BEREC’s  role  in  encouraging  regulatory 
coherence, thereby enhancing the internal market for electronic communications and end-
users’  empowerment.  Specifically,  BEREC  could  take  on  a  more  proactive  role  in 
advocating for a unified approach to implementing the European regulatory framework for 
electronic  communications,  in  accordance  with  Article  3  of  the  BEREC  Regulation, 
particularly through its guidelines. 

5.3 Is the intervention still relevant? 

Asymmetries in NRAs’ competences in Member States may limit the relevance of BEREC 
for certain NRAs. This is prompting the question how BEREC could best ‘contribute to a 
regulatory environment fit for the digital age in the run-up to 2030’ as BEREC puts it in 
its own input to its evaluation.   

Moreover,  the  current  governance  structure  has  been  conceived  for  markets  which  are 
national in scope, and where ex ante regulation is the main tool in the regulatory toolbox. 
This  is  changing,  since  the  European  dimension  of  the  sector  is  developing,  while 

27   Members  with  full  voting  rights:  27  EU  Member  States.  Participants  without  voting  rights:  Iceland, 
Liechtenstein, Norway (Decision of the EEA Joint Committee 24 September 2021) as well as Western 
Balkans  6:  Albania,  Bosnia  &  Herzegovina,  Kosovo,  Montenegro,  North  Macedonia,  Serbia  (COM 
Decision approving Working Arrangements, 2 June 2023), Ukraine (COM Decision approving Working 
Arrangements,  19  January  2024),  Moldova  (COM  Decision  approving  Working  Arrangements,  20 
February 2025). 

Not formally associated: Switzerland, Turkey, UK. 

24 

 
 
competitive conditions have evolved, hence reducing the scope of ex ante regulation based 
on a regular review of national markets. These two developments are calling for sustaining 
and broadening BEREC’s expertise. 

In  this  respect,  and  while  BEREC’s  current  tasks  are  mostly  of  an  advisory  nature,  the 
question  arises  how  the  mandate  of  BEREC  and  the  BEREC  Office  should  evolve  and 
possibly be strengthened to adapt to new responsibilities and tasks in the digital field.  

The current set-up also challenges the relevance of BEREC’s work on digital markets for 
certain industry and consumer representatives. External stakeholders want to engage more 
with BEREC in virtual events or public consultations, often ask for more time to respond 
to consultations, and for more transparency on upcoming initiatives. 

25 

 
 
Annex I:   Procedural Information 

−  Lead  DG:  DG  Connect,  Decide  reference:  (PLAN/2023/2335),  Headline  ambition: 

Europe fit for the Digital age (no Work Program reference) 

−  As BEREC is not a directly public facing entity, it is not considered particularly useful 
to  gather  comments  in  a  public  consultation  format.  The  relevant  stakeholders  are 
limited to regulators and operators engaged and potentially affected and which does 
not justify open public consultation. Relevant stakeholders have been consulted in the 
scope of the study and were able to react to the publication of the notice and call for 
Expression of Interest.  

−  Derogations granted and justification: none applicable. 

−  Organisation  and  timing:  the  Interservice  Steering  Group  comprising  SG,  LS,  HR, 
BUDG,  COMP  and  NEAR  was  set  up  under  the  coordination  of  DG  Connect  in 
October 2023 (Ares(2023)7239421) and met on 5 December 2023 to discuss the final 
report submitted by the consultant and on 12 January 2024 to discuss the draft version 
of this document.  Furthermore, the BEREC Evaluation Report and its accompanying 
SWD were consulted with other EC services in January 2026.  

−  Consultation of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (if relevant): not applicable.  

−  Evidence used together with sources and any issues regarding its quality (i.e. has the 

information been quality assured?); 

−  Use of external expertise: Study supporting the evaluation of BEREC and the BEREC 

Office, PwC and PPMI, October 2023.  

Annex II. Methodology and Analytical models used 

This evaluation report draws on an external study that was conducted by PPMI and PWC, 
the  external  contractors.  The  study  was  comprehensive,  utilising  various  evaluation 
methods  such  as  documentary  review,  desk  research,  interviews,  survey  questions, 
participant  observation,  administrative,  financial,  and  monitoring  data  to  gather  both 
qualitative and quantitative evidence to answer the evaluation questions. The evaluation 
matrix presented below outlines the various data sources that were used to cover all  the 
evaluation questions. The contractor compiled a list of relevant stakeholders to collect data 
and  views  from  them,  ensuring  that  the  report  is  well-rounded.  In  conducting  the 
evaluation, a detailed task-level appraisal exercise was conducted based on the lists of tasks 
approved by the Commission services for BEREC and the BEREC office. This helped to 
ensure that all tasks were properly assessed and evaluated. Overall, this evaluation report 
is a comprehensive and detailed analysis of the relevant data to provide insights into the 
evaluation questions. No adjustments were deemed necessary for the original plan.  

The Commission steering committee, with participation from Connect, SG, HR and BUDG 
reviewed the interim report submitted in August 2023 and provided input in order to further 
enhance  the  quality  of  the  report.  The  steering  committee  (now  in  the  form  of  the 

26 

 
 
Interservice Steering Group setup as per Annex I) further provided input to the draft final 
and final reports submitted by the contractor in December 2023. 

The  supporting  study  proved  to  be  highly  beneficial  for  the  Commission  services.  It 
provided a clear framework for evaluating the issues at hand, based on the gathered data 
and  evidence.  As  a  result,  it  played  a  pivotal  role  in  shaping  the  current  staff  working 
document.  

The methodology applied is presented below. It describes the approach to secondary and 
primary  data  collection,  including  desk  research,  interview,  and  survey  programmes  as 
well as participant observation and the development of case studies. 

1. Desk Research  

Includes gathering and reviewing a number of administrative documents that overview the 
activity of BEREC and the BEREC Office in the years 2019-2023, including:   

-  Mapping of Work Programmes and Annual Reports 

Covers BEREC work programmes for years 2019 to  2023 and  annual  reports for years 
2019 to 2022. All the deliverables reflected in these documents in their absolute numbers 
were mapped in a consolidated table provided as Annex 10 of the evaluation study. They 
cover activities, outputs, planned timing, output category, type of output, the legal basis 
that assigns the activity to BEREC, carry-over status, ad hoc/new activity distinction and 
whether the activity implied a call for stakeholders’ input, a public consultation, and/or a 
stakeholder  workshop.  In  cases  when  more  than  one  output  of  a  different  type  was 
produced within one activity, the study team identified and assigned the key deliverable. 
The  activities  were  marked  as  ‘ad  hoc’  in  two  cases:  when  explicitly  stated  as  such  in 
BEREC’s programs and reports, and when deliverables not foreseen in a work program 
appeared in the corresponding annual report. The relevant regulation for each activity was 
identified either via explicit mentions in the reports and programmes or through analysis 
of the relevant legal framework. The latter helped to link the outputs to the corresponding 
documents authorising BEREC with the delivery of certain tasks. The database was used 
for the purpose of the task-level appraisal and for the purposes of the implementation and 
effectiveness evaluation criteria.  

-  Administrative and monitoring data review  

Documents containing administrative and monitoring data that were shared by the BEREC 
Office  and  others  available  online  were  analysed  during  the  evaluation  study.  The  data 
provided  an  overview  of  financial  and  non-financial  performance  of  BEREC  and  the 
BEREC  Office.  The  data  from  Reports  on  budgetary  and  financial  management  by  the 
BEREC Office was also consolidated in one database, available in Annex 6. It includes 
information on the total, committed and used budget across different expense categories, 
as well as on carried-over payments. This data was further used for the evaluation along 
the efficiency criteria. Insights from the audit reports by competent authorities were also 
reviewed  and  used  for  preliminary  assessment  of  BEREC  and  the  BEREC  Office’s 
implementation, effectiveness and efficiency.  

-  Review of BEREC’s legislative mentions 

27 

 
The  official  documents  and  materials  produced  by  the  European  Commission,  the 
European Parliament, and the Council of the European Union were analysed for mentions 
of BEREC’s outputs. The review process for each entity involved distinct approaches. 

Regarding the Commission, a meticulous two-step methodology was employed to assess 
the  1,278  proposals  for  legislative  acts  released  between  2019  and  2023  -  first  a 
comprehensive set of keywords was compiled based on an analysis of BEREC's mandate 
and areas of competence outlined in Regulation (EU) 2018/1971,  and second proposals 
resulting  from  this  broad  keyword  search  were  subject  to  a  manual.  9  proposals  were 
chosen for further scrutiny. Next, the frequency and nature of references to BEREC and its 
contributions within the selected proposals was evaluated. For the European Parliament, 
the study team scanned the texts adopted by the institution to identify any references to 
BEREC  and  its  output.  In  the  case  of  the  Council,  the  team  reviewed  a  compilation  of 
pertinent mentions of BEREC across all documents published during the specified study 
period. 

The results of the exercise are included in  Annex 2 of the  evaluation  study and, where 
relevant, elaborated in the preliminary findings for the Effectiveness criteria.  

2. Interviews  

57 interviews with pertinent stakeholders were conducted. The interviewed stakeholders 
included  representatives  of  the  BEREC  Office,  NRAs,  other  competent  authorities,  EU 
institutions  and  international  networks,  as  well  as  industry  and  consumer  associations. 
Table  2  below  summarises  the  interview  programme.  Summary  of  the  Interview 
programme is included in Table 2 of Annex 1 of the evaluation study.  

3. Survey  

On 7 August 2023, two surveys were launched, one addressed to NRAs and the other one 
addressed to all the other relevant stakeholders, including (i) industry and consumers, (ii) 
international bodies and networks, (iii) other competent authorities, and (iv) representative 
of  EU  bodies  and  networks.  The  aim  of  the  survey  was  to  gather  data  to  assess  all  the 
evaluation criteria for both BEREC and the BEREC Office, hence, to understand whether 
the Body and its Office have been successful in implementing their tasks.  

In detail, the two surveys were structured as follows: 

-  NRA  Survey:  the  questionnaire  was  structured  in  seven  blocks,  namely  (1)  an 
introductive section asking for the NRA’s information, (2) a section on BEREC’s 
achievement  of objectives, (3) a block on BEREC’s efficiency, (4) a section on 
BEREC’s  impacts  and  added  value,  and,  similarly,  (5)  a  block  on  the  BEREC 
Office’s  achievement  of  objectives,  (6)  a  section  on  the  BEREC  Office’s 
efficiency, and a final block on (7) the BEREC Office’s added value. 

-  Stakeholder Survey: the questionnaire was structures in three blocks, namely (1) 
an introductive section asking for the respondents’ information, (2) a section on the 
achievement of BEREC’s objectives, and a third one on (3) BEREC’s impact and 
added value. 

The software used to implement the surveys was Qualtrics. Questions included in the two 
surveys have been developed based on previous desk research and scoping interviews and 
are available as part of Annex 8 of the evaluation study. Both surveys included closed and 

28 

 
open  questions  and,  while  closed  questions  were  always  mandatory,  only  some  open 
questions were compulsory. The survey timing is as follows:  

•  On 7 August 2023, the two surveys were launched, to be completed by the 1st of 

September; 

•  On 16 August 2023, a first follow-up email was sent regarding both surveys; 
•  On 17 August 2023, BEREC published the link to the ‘Stakeholder Survey’ on its 

website; 

•  On 22 August 2023, a second follow-up email was sent regarding both surveys; 
•  On 29 August 2023, the deadline was postponed to the 8th of September 2023, to 
ensure a high response rate to both questionnaires. Stakeholders were informed via 
email of the deadline postponement; 

•  On 4 September 2023, a third follow-up email was sent regarding both surveys. In 
addition, the survey was sent to additional ‘industry and consumer’ stakeholders, 
since their response rate was quite low;  

•  On 5 September 2023, targeted follow-up emails were sent to the NRAs which have 
not replied yet, providing them with the possibility to take the interview instead of 
responding to the survey, if preferred; 

•  To  those  stakeholders  who  requested  additional  time  to  complete  the  survey, 

further deadline extension until 15 September 2023 was provided. 

The two surveys were disseminated to 38 NRAs and 194 other stakeholders, where the 
latter were specifically 82 industry and consumers, 21 international bodies and networks, 
85  other  national  competent  authorities,  and  6  representatives  of  EU  bodies.  Overall, 
through the two surveys, 66 responses have been collected. The survey results have been 
analysed using data science and analytics software, complemented with manual analysis. 
The detailed analysis of responses is presented in Annex 3 of the evaluation study. 

4. Participant observation  

Participant observation was used as a supplementary tool for the evaluation study. It aimed 
to provide deeper insights into the dynamics of BEREC’s stakeholder engagement. The 
study team observed a total of three virtual workshops: BEREC Workshop on international 
submarine connectivity in the EU, BEREC Workshop on switching and interoperability of 
data processing services and BEREC Workshop on end-users in the context of the Digital 
Markets Act. 

For  the  purpose  of  participant  observation,  observation  templates  tailored  to  BEREC’s 
workshops  were  developed.  The  templates  were  designed  in  a  way  so  as  to  capture 
information related to events’ aspects, including event organisation, audience and speaker 
engagement, moderator participation, and any references to BEREC and its activities made 
by  external  stakeholders.  The  information  gathered  from  this  exercise  fed  into  the  data 
triangulation for the evaluation, especially as it relates to the criteria of relevance and task-
level appraisal related to BEREC’s engagement activities.  

5. Case studies  

A total of five case studies were developed for the purpose of the evaluation. Case studies 
are particularly useful analytical tool to assess evaluation questions where the attribution 
of  BEREC  and  the  BEREC  Office’s  role  is  more  challenging  and  where  causal  links 
between BEREC’s activities and impacts are more complex. As such, the case studies were 

29 

 
selected to showcase the impacts of different types of BEREC's outputs and activities. The 
following five case study topics were selected: 

•  BEREC’s work on the Open Internet Regulation guidelines; 
•  BEREC’s ad hoc work to support the Ukrainian NRA; 
•  BEREC’s work on cybersecurity and fruitful collaboration with ENISA; 
•  BEREC’s work on sustainability; 
•  BEREC’s role in Phase II process in line with Articles 32-33 of the EECC. 

The  case  studies  were  developed  following  data  collected  through  desk  research, 
interviews, and stakeholder surveys. 

30 

 
 
Annex III. Evaluation matrix and, where relevant, Details on answers to the evaluation questions (by criterion) 

Evaluation question 

Operational question 

Stakeholders 
addressed 

Data sources 

Judgement criteria and preliminary 
indicators 

Effectiveness 

To what extent has 
BEREC and BEREC 
Office achieved their 
objectives? What, if 
anything, could be 
done to render the 
BEREC Office more 
effective in 
achieving these 
objectives? 

-  Did the activities of BEREC and BEREC Office 
result in the expected outputs? Were they high 
quality? 

-  To what extent did the activities of BEREC and 
BEREC Office contribute to a more consistent 
implementation of the European regulatory 
framework for electronic communications? 

-  To what extent did the activities of BEREC and 
BEREC office contribute to promoting increased 
connectivity? 

-  To what extent did it contribute to the better access 

to VHCN? 

-  If relevant, what were the main factors limiting the 

Agency’s contribution to this objective? 

Task level 
appraisal  

Interviews 

Survey 

Interviews 

Desk research 

Survey 

Case studies 

BEREC 

BEREC Office  

DG CNECT 

NRAs 

Other national 
authorities and 
competent bodies 

Other DGs and 
EU bodies  

Positive assessment if: Successful 
implementation of activities and 
delivery of outputs as a key 
precondition for achieving objectives.  

Positive assessment if: stakeholders 
identify the link between BEREC and 
BEREC Office’s activities and this 
impact. 

Positive assessment if: stakeholders 
identify the link between BEREC and 
BEREC Office’s activities and this 
impact. 

31 

 
 
 
 
-  To what extent did the activities of BEREC and 

BEREC office support a more sustainable and open 
digital market? 

-  To what extent they improved the cooperation and 

International 
bodies and 
networks 

Industry and 
consumers 

coordination between the NRAs? 

-  To what extent they enhanced the competition 

between and investment in electronic 
communication networks and services? 

-  If relevant, what were the main factors limiting the 

Agency’s contribution to this objective? 

-  To what extent did the activities of BEREC and 

BEREC office contribute to empowering end-users? 
-  To what extent do they improve access to electronic 

communication services? 

-  To what extent they improved end-user protection? 
-  If relevant, what were the main factors limiting the 

Agency’s contribution to this objective? 

-  What are the external factors that affected the 

contribution to increased connectivity and access to 
VHCNs? 

BEREC Office  

DG CNECT 

-  What are the external factors that affected the 
support to a more sustainable and open digital 
market, coordination between the NRAs, as well as 
competition between and investment in electronic 
communication networks and services? 

NRAs 

Interviews 

Other national 
authorities and 
competent bodies 

Desk research 

Survey 

Other DGs and 
EU bodies  

32 

Positive assessment if: stakeholders 
identify the link between Agency’s 
activities and this impact. 

Positive assessment if: stakeholders 
identify the link between Agency’s 
activities and this impact. 

Identified through stakeholder views 
and overview of trends related to 
connectivity and VHCNs during the 
evaluation period. Each trend will be 
considered in terms of BEREC and 
BEREC Office’s contribution to it.  

Identified through stakeholder views 
and overview of trends related to the 
development of open digital market 
during the evaluation period. Each 
trend will be considered in terms of 
BEREC and BEREC Office’s 
contribution to it. 

What external 
factors have affected 
the ability of 
BEREC and BEREC 
Office to achieve the 
objectives? 

 
-  What are the external factors that affected the 

empowerment of end users, access to electronic 
communication services and end-user protection? 

-  What are unexpected or unintended effects (if any) 

of BEREC's functioning that relate to the 
contribution to increased connectivity and access to 
VHCNs?  

-  What are the consequences? 
-  What can explain these effects? 

-  What are unexpected or unintended effects (if any) 
of BEREC's functioning that relate to its efforts to 
support sustainable and open digital market, 
coordination between the NRAs, as well as 
competition between and investment in electronic 
communication networks and services? 

-  What are the consequences? 
-  What can explain these effects? 

-  What are unexpected or unintended effects (if any) 

of BEREC's functioning that relate to the 
empowerment of end users, access to electronic 
communication services and end-user protection? 

-  What are the consequences? 
-  What can explain these effects? 

Are there any 
unexpected or 
unintended effects of 
BEREC's 
functioning that have 
occurred, and what 
are their 
consequences? What 
can explain these 
effects? 

Identified through stakeholder views 
and overview of trends related to the 
end-user empowerment during the 
evaluation period. Each trend will be 
considered in terms of BEREC and 
BEREC Office’s contribution to it. 

Identified through stakeholder views 
and overview of trends related to 
connectivity and VHCNs during the 
evaluation period. Each trend will be 
considered in terms of BEREC and 
BEREC Office’s contribution to it.  

Identified through stakeholder views 
and overview of trends related to the 
development of open digital market 
during the evaluation period. Each 
trend will be considered in terms of 
BEREC and BEREC Office’s 
contribution to it. 

Identified through stakeholder views 
and overview of trends related to the 
end-user empowerment during the 
evaluation period. Each trend will be 

Interviews 

Desk research 

Survey 

International 
bodies and 
networks 

Industry and 
consumers 

BEREC Office  

DG CNECT 

NRAs 

Other national 
authorities and 
competent bodies 

Other DGs and 
EU bodies  

International 
bodies and 
networks 

Industry and 
consumers 

33 

 
considered in terms of BEREC and 
BEREC Office’s contribution to it. 

Stakeholder perceptions identified 
through stakeholder consultations, 
triangulated with additional data 
sources.  

BEREC Office 

NRAs 

Other DGs and 
EU bodies  

Documentary 
analysis 

Interviews 

Analysis of task 
implementation 
(see above) 

Positive assessment if: BEREC and 
BEREC Office actively implement the 
tasks indicated in the established 
regulatory framework; no gaps exist; 
the implementation is of high quality, 
as judged by stakeholders.  

-  Are there the other unexpected or unintended 

effects of BEREC's functioning? 

-  What are their consequences?  
-  What can explain these effects? 

-  To what extent are the overall activities of BEREC 
and BEREC Office in line with the legal framework 
outlining their responsibilities? 

-  Do BEREC and BEREC Office implement all the 

tasks/ activities assigned to them? Do they 
implement additional tasks on an ad hoc basis? To 
what extent do the ad hoc tasks impact BEREC and 
BEREC Office’s ability to implement their main 
Tasks? 

-  What are the stakeholder perceptions on the matter? 

Implementation 

To what extent have 
BEREC and the 
BEREC Office been 
operating according 
to the legal 
framework 
establishing it? 

Are there 
inconsistencies or 

-  Which other (if any) EU bodies and agencies 

engage in activities related to the regulation of the 
electronic communications market? 

BEREC Office  

List of BEREC 
and BEREC 

Positive assessment if: The 
stakeholders do not identify gaps and 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
overlaps between the 
tasks carried out by 
BEREC and BEREC 
Office and other 
agencies or EU 
bodies? 

Is there a clear and 
appropriate 
delimitation of 
responsibilities and 
tasks between the 
BEREC and BEREC 
Office and the 
partner DG? Are 
there overlaps or 
gaps? 

-  How are the activities of BEREC and BEREC 
Office complementary to or overlap with the 
activities of these EU agencies and bodies? 

-  What are the stakeholder perceptions on the matter? 

NRAs 

DG CNECT 

Other DGs and 
EU bodies  

Office tasks 
(Task 1) 

Documentary 
analysis 

Interviews 

overlaps in the consultation activities; 
gaps and overlaps are not identified by 
comparing the relevant documents and 
work programmes; the relevant 
documents provide a clear 
delimitation of responsibilities; the 
actual practices do not deviate from 
the documentation. 

-  What are the documents that delimit the 

responsibilities and tasks between the BEREC, 
BEREC Office and the partner DG? 

-  What are the actual practices/ principles of 
delimiting the responsibilities and tasks? 

-  Are the important overlaps and gaps? 

-  What are the stakeholder perceptions on the matter? 

BEREC Office 

NRAs 

DG CNECT 

Other DGs and 
EU bodies  

List of BEREC 
and BEREC 
Office tasks 
(Task 1) 

Documentary 
analysis 

Interviews 

Positive assessment if: The 
stakeholders do not identify gaps and 
overlaps in the consultation activities; 
gaps and overlaps are not identified by 
comparing the relevant documents and 
work programmes; the relevant 
documents provide a clear 
delimitation of responsibilities; the 
actual practices do not deviate from 
the documentation.  

-  What are the documents that delimit the 

responsibilities and tasks between the BEREC and 
BEREC Office and other DGs?  

-  What are the actual practices/ principles of 
delimiting the responsibilities and tasks? 

35 

Positive assessment if: The 
stakeholders do not identify gaps and 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
-  Are the important overlaps and gaps? 

-  What are the stakeholder perceptions on the matter? 

BEREC Office 

NRAs 

Other DGs and 
EU bodies  

List of BEREC 
and BEREC 
Office tasks 
(Task 1) 

Documentary 
analysis 

Interviews 

overlaps in the consultation activities; 
gaps and overlaps are not identified by 
comparing the relevant documents and 
work programmes; the relevant 
documents provide a clear 
delimitation of responsibilities; the 
actual practices do not deviate from 
the documentation.  

-  What instruments are in in place to ensure 

coordination and information flow between the 
BEREC and BEREC Office and the Commission 
services? 

-  Are they appropriate and sufficient? 
-  Were gaps or overlaps identified under the previous 

questions? 

-  Is the information exchange sufficient? 

BEREC Office 

NRAs 

Documentary 
analysis 

DG CNECT 

Interviews 

Other DGs and 
EU bodies 

Positive assessment if: instruments for 
adequate coordination and 
information flow are explicit and 
consistently applied; no issues/ gaps 
in coordination and information flow 
are identified by the stakeholders 

Is there a clear and 
appropriate 
delimitation of 
responsibilities and 
tasks between the 
BEREC and BEREC 
Office and other 
Commission DGs? 
Are there overlaps or 
gaps? 

Are appropriate 
mechanisms and 
instruments put in 
place to ensure an 
adequate 
coordination and 
information flow 
between the BEREC 
and BEREC Office 
and the Commission 
services? 

Efficiency 

-  What are the relevant and crucial aspects of 

BEREC’s, and BEREC Office’s work related to 
achieving the objectives timely? 

-  What are the main aspects contributing to delays? 

NRAs 

Interviews 

Stakeholder perceptions identified 
through stakeholder consultations, 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Has BEREC and 
BEREC Office 
signalled relevant 
and crucial aspects 
of their work related 
to achieving their 
objectives timely? 

To what extent have 
the BEREC and 
BEREC Office 
adapted to periods of 
high workload? 

To what extent have 
BEREC and BEREC 
Office's internal 
organisation, 
governance and 
procedures been 
conducive to its 

BEREC Office 

DG CNECT 

Document 
analysis 

triangulated with additional data 
sources. 

-  What were the periods of high workload during the 

evaluation period? Were they common? 

-  Did BEREC and BEREC Office manage to carry on 

with all of their tasks during these periods? 

-  What was the usage of resources during these 

periods? 

-  How do the NRAs and BEREC Office staff assess 
their performance and experiences during the 
periods of high workload? 

-  What are the administrative costs, fixed costs, 

running costs and other types of costs of BEREC 
and BEREC Office? 

-  What stakeholders bear these costs? 

-  To what extent do the BEREC and BEREC Office's 
internal organisation, governance and procedures 
affect their efficiency? Can inefficiencies be easily 
identified? 

NRAs 

BEREC Office 

DG CNECT 

NRAs 

BEREC Office 

DG CNECT 

Other DGs and 
EU bodies 

37 

Results of the 
task-level 
appraisal 

Interviews 

Document 
analysis 
(including costs 
information) 

Interviews 

Analysis of 
costs 
information 

Positive assessment if the tasks of 
BEREC and BEREC Office have been 
implemented in a timely manner, and 
without exceeding the planned 
resources. 

Positive assessment if stakeholders do 
not identify significant administrative 
burdens; if no wastage is identified; if 
stakeholders do not identify excessive 
costs falling on them 

 
 
 
efficiency and what 
administrative costs 
and burdens does it 
create and to whom? 

To which extent is 
the BEREC Office’s 
organisation 
(governance, 
structure, allocation 
of resources, etc.) fit 
for purpose? 

Is the balance 
between operational 
staff and 
administrative 
support staff of 
BEREC Office 
appropriate? 

-  How has the Agency’s organisation (governance, 
structure, allocation of resources, etc.) affected its 
activities and achievement of objectives?  

-  Have there been issues that could be linked to 

Agency’s organisation?  What were they? How 
specifically do they relate to the Agency’s 
organisation? 

-  What is the balance of operational staff and 

administrative support staff? 

-  How does it affect the implementation of Agency’s 
tasks and achievement of objectives? Does it create 
issues? 

BEREC Office 

NRAs 

DG CNECT 

Other DGs and 
EU bodies 

Results of the 
task-level 
appraisal 

Interviews 

Document 
analysis 

Positive assessment if no major issues 
linked to the Agency’s organisation 
are identified; if it could be 
demonstrated (e.g., though case 
studies) how the Agency’s 
organisation is conductive to 
achieving its objectives 

BEREC Office 

NRAs 

DG CNECT 

Other DGs and 
EU bodies 

Results of the 
task-level 
appraisal 

Interviews 

Document 
analysis  

Positive assessment if no issues linked 
to the balance between operational 
and administrative support staff is 
identified in implementing the 
Agency’s activities.  

-  What are the inefficiencies identified in the 
BEREC’s and BEREC Office’s activities? 

BEREC Office 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
NRAs 

DG CNECT 

Other DGs and 
EU bodies 

-  What activities of the BEREC and BEREC Office 

are particularly efficiently implemented? 

-  What are the factors that could be linked to each of 
the elements that demonstrate efficiencies and 
inefficiencies? 

-  What are the main inefficiencies in the BEREC’s 

and BEREC Office’s activities that could be linked 
to its processes and workflow are organised? 

BEREC Office 

-  How could the processes and workflow of the 

NRAs 

BEREC and BEREC Office be improved to ensure 
a more efficient implementation of tasks and 
achievement of objectives? What are the options 
and how would they improve the situation? 

DG CNECT 

Results of task-
level appraisal 

Interviews 

Analysis of 
costs 
information 

Results of task-
level appraisal 

Interviews 

Analysis of 
costs 
information 

Findings on the previous efficiency 
questions and stakeholder perceptions 
identified through stakeholder 
consultations, triangulated with 
additional data sources. 

Findings on the previous efficiency 
questions and stakeholder perceptions 
identified through stakeholder 
consultations, triangulated with 
additional data sources. 

What 
aspects/means/actors 
or processes render 
the BEREC and 
BEREC Office more 
or less efficient? 

Which scope for 
improvement and 
simplification of 
processes and 
workflows exists? 
What could be other 
relevant ways of 
assuring the work of 
BEREC and the 
BEREC Office (e.g. 
merger with another 
EU entity)? 

Relevance 

Did objectives and 
tasks of BEREC 
respond successfully 

-  To what extent are the objectives of BEREC 

grounded in the needs outlined in establishing 
Regulation (EU) 2018/1971 and the Directive (EU) 
2018/1972? 

NRAs 

Documentary 
review  

Interviews  

Needs that have a legal basis to be 
served according to the Regulation – 
i.e. needs that can be clearly related to 
BEREC’s mandate. 

39 

 
to original needs of 
the stakeholders?  

-  To what extent do BEREC’s objectives and 
activities correspond to BEREC Office’s 
stakeholders' needs at the time of its establishment? 

-  To what extent do BEREC’s objectives and tasks 

correspond to BEREC Office’s stakeholders' needs 
at the moment?   

Do objectives and 
tasks of BEREC 
respond successfully 
to current needs? 

-  How often are BEREC’s outputs referred to in the 
EU and national policy documents related to 
electronic communications?  

-  To what extent do BEREC stakeholders such as the 
NRAs and other EU bodies and networks reuse 
BEREC’s outputs in their policy and decision-
making? 

Survey  

Task-level 
appraisal (see 
above) 

To a large extent if the majority of 
BEREC’s relevant stakeholders agree 
with this. 

Documentary 
review  

Interviews  

Survey  

Participant 
Observation 

Case studies 

To a large extent if the majority of 
BEREC’s relevant stakeholders agree 
with this. 

To a large extent if BEREC’s outputs 
are referred to in the EU and national 
policy documents related to electronic 
communications.  

To a large extent if BEREC 
stakeholders such as the NRAs 
confirm using BEREC outputs in their 
policy and decision-making at the EU 
or national level.  

Other national 
authorities and 
competent bodies 

Other DGs and 
EU bodies 
International 
bodies and 
networks 

Industry and 
consumers 

NRAs 

Other national 
authorities and 
competent bodies 

Other DGs and 
EU bodies 
International 
bodies and 
networks 

Industry and 
consumers 

40 

 
-  To what extent are BEREC’s objectives and tasks 
revisited to address the latest developments and 
challenges in the electronic communications 
markets?  

-  To what extent do BEREC stakeholders agree that 
BEREC’s responses to the new developments and 
challenges has been in line with its mandate and 
satisfied their needs? 

-  To what extent does BEREC Office support the 
additional and ad hoc activities of BEREC 
effectively?  

NRAs 

DG CNECT 

Other DGs and 
EU bodies 
International 
bodies and 
networks 

Industry and 
consumers 

Documentary 
review 

Interviews 

Survey 

Are objectives and 
tasks revisited 
periodically to 
identify upcoming 
and urgent needs? 

Coherence 

To what extent has 
the BEREC enabled 
the Commission to 
better focus on its 
policy related tasks? 
How well do they 
inscribe in the 

-  To what extent the operation of BEREC has 

enabled the Commission staff to focus better on the 
institutional tasks as compared to the alternative 
options?   

-  To what extent NRAs and BEREC’s stakeholders 
indicate that the role and purpose of BEREC are 
clear and properly defined? 

-  The extent to which relevant stakeholders agree the 
mechanisms and instruments are appropriate in 

DG CNECT 

Other DGs and 
EU bodies  

Document 
review 

Interviews  

Survey  

41 

To a large extent if the evaluation 
finds that BEREC’s work has 
addressed the new developments and 
challenges in the electronic 
communications market explicitly. 

To a large extent if BEREC’s 
stakeholders agree that BEREC’s 
response to the new developments and 
challenges has been in line with its 
mandate and satisfied their needs. 

To a large extent if the evaluation 
finds that BEREC’ Office’s 
supporting work has addressed the 
additional and ad hoc activities of 
BEREC in a timely and efficient 
manner.  

To large extent if the consulted 
Commission representatives and 
BEREC stakeholders agree with the 
statements.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
overarching policy 
goals? 

ensuring adequate coordination and information 
flow between the BEREC, BEREC Office and the 
Commission? 

Case studies 

-  What is the quality of the monitoring information 

provided to the Commission?  

-  To what extent is the advice and opinions provided 
by BEREC clear and relevant to the Commission or 
other stakeholders?  

-  To what extent has the know-how of BEREC 

helped to serve the needs of the Commission and 
other stakeholders? 

-  What, if any innovations were adopted by the 
Commission and the NRAs as a result of 
knowledge sharing with BEREC and BEREC’s 
reports? 

Document 
review 

Interviews  

-  What is the clarity, relevance and timeliness of the 

monitoring information provided to the 
Commission? 

DG CNECT 

Survey 

Other DGs and 
EU bodies  

-  To what extent are BEREC’s guidelines followed 

and implemented by the NRAs? 

Extent to which the consulted 
stakeholders assess the information 
provided by BEREC as timely, 
relevant and of high quality  

Extent to which the document review 
shows timely delivery of outputs to 
BEREC’s stakeholders.  

Results of BEREC monitoring reports 

Extent to which consulted 
stakeholders reference BEREC 
guidelines and opinion in 
implementation of their work 

Does BEREC 
provide useful 
information in 
support of the policy 
process? 

EU Added Value 

Could the identified 
outputs/results/impac

-  To what extent is the work of BEREC different 
from NRAs and other relevant groups or boards, 
such as the Radio Spectrum Policy Group (RSPG), 
in terms of its activities and outputs? 

BEREC Office 

Interviews  

To a large extent if there is an 
identifiable difference in all key 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
ts have been 
achieved without EU 
intervention? 

NRAs 

Survey 

DG CNECT 

Case studies 

services of BEREC and the NRAs, 
and other relevant groups 

-  To what extent are BEREC’s services used by other 

EU and international bodies?  

Task-level 
appraisal (as 
presented 
above) 

Other DGs and 
EU bodies 
International 
bodies and 
networks 

Industry and 
consumers 

-  What is the level of added value of BEREC at the 

national level in terms of (a) collection and 
dissemination of relevant information, (b) new 
knowledge, insights and evidence generated, (c) 
information and data exchange, (d) other elements? 

Other national 
authorities and 
competent bodies 

-  To what extent BEREC’s activities and outputs do 
not duplicate Commission’s activities and provide 
added value to the Commission? 

Is it still valid to 
assume that the 

-  To what extent did stakeholders use BEREC results 
and outputs and deem these to provide added value 
to their work? 

Interviews  

43 

High if various groups of BEREC’s 
European and national level 
stakeholders are actively using 
BEREC’s documents for information 
and guidance on electronic 
communications market 

High if various groups of BEREC’s 
European and national level 
stakeholders are actively using 
BEREC’s documents for information 
and guidance on electronic 
communications market 

To a large extent if the Commission 
and other key stakeholders cannot 
identify any unnecessary duplications  

To a large extent if the Commission 
mentions elements of BERE added 
value that it finds useful for its own 
work 

 
 
 
objectives of the 
intervention can best 
be met by action at 
EU level? 

-  To what extent did BEREC and BEREC Office 
manage to create the basis for European and 
national level information on electronic 
communications that could support public policy 
agenda setting and decision making? 

What would be the 
most likely 
consequences of 
stopping or 
withdrawing EU 
intervention? 

-  Which of the outputs of BEREC and BEREC 

Office would be challenging to implement by the 
Commission or the NRAs themselves?  

-  To what extent would the NRAs continue working 

on similar topics related to the electronic 
communications market?  

-  What additional activities and measures would the 
Commission need to take to ensure effective 
implementation of the regulatory framework for 
electronic communications?  

-  What would be the associated costs and potential 

administrative burden of those activities? 

BEREC Office 

Survey 

NRAs 

Case studies 

Task-level 
appraisal (as 
presented 
above) 

Interviews  

Survey 

Case studies 

Task-level 
appraisal (as 
presented 
above) 

DG CNECT 

Other DGs and 
EU bodies 
International 
bodies and 
networks 

Industry and 
consumers 

Other national 
authorities and 
competent bodies 

BEREC Office 

NRAs 

DG CNECT 

Other DGs and 
EU bodies  

44 

The extent to which the stakeholders 
agree with the statements 

The extent to which the stakeholders 
agree with the statements 

 
 
 
What is the 
additional value 
resulting from the 
EU intervention(s), 
compared to what 
could reasonably 
have been achieved 
(in terms of 
effectiveness and 
efficiency) by 
Member States 
acting at national 
and/or regional 
levels? 

-  To what extent is Commission’s attribution of tasks 
and responsibilities to BEREC is beneficial in 
comparison to implementation of these tasks and 
responsibilities by the Member States themselves? 

BEREC 

NRAs 

-  To what extent do the NRAs perceive the work of 
BEREC as adding additional value to their own 
activities? 

DG CNECT 

Other DGs and 
EU bodies 

Other national 
authorities and 
competent bodies 

Interviews  

Survey 

Case studies 

Task-level 
appraisal (as 
presented 
above) 

The extent to which the stakeholders 
agree with the statements 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation questions and main findings (BEREC):  

Implementation 

To what extent has BEREC been operating according to the legal framework establishing 
it? 

BEREC has  been operating according to  the legal  framework since 2019, with  no legal 
violations  or  disputes  identified.    Between  2019  and  2022,  BEREC  implemented  186 
activities  and  produced  reports,  study  reports,  and  guidelines.  BEREC  advises  the 
European Commission and other institutions upon request or on its initiative and has issued 
opinions on its own initiative. Although some Commission officials noted that BEREC's 
opinions do not always align with the legislative process's timing, BEREC's independence 
is crucial, and its opinions serve as an essential independent input into the EU legislative 
process. 

Are there inconsistencies or overlaps between the tasks carried out by BEREC and other 
agencies or EU bodies?  

No  inconsistences  or  overlaps  are  found.  BEREC  collaborates  with  other  EU  agencies, 
including ENISA, RSPG, and ERGA, to ensure coordination and avoid overlaps. BEREC 
supports ENISA by providing input and advice on 5G networks. BEREC cooperates with 
RSPG on radio spectrum matters and with ERGA on digital markets. Looking to the future, 
BEREC  aims  to  increase  collaboration  with  key  players  in  the  telecommunications  and 
media sectors. 

Is there a clear and appropriate delimitation of responsibilities and tasks between BEREC 
and the partner DG? Are there overlaps or gaps? 

Based  on  the  collected  data,  BEREC  and  DG  CNECT's  responsibilities  are  mostly 
appropriate.  The  Commission  is  responsible  for  policymaking,  while  BEREC  supports 
legislation regarding electronic communications. BEREC offers independent expert advice 
to the Commission and has the power to issue its own opinions. The Commission must 
consider  BEREC's  opinions,  which  can  sometimes  differ.  BEREC  and  the  Commission 
could have more exchanges of ideas in the future. 

Is there a clear and appropriate delimitation of responsibilities and tasks between BEREC 
and other Commission DGs? Are there overlaps or gaps? 

A clear and appropriate delimitation of responsibilities exists between BEREC and other 
Commission DGs. BEREC’s outputs are pertinent to several DGs, as listed on its website. 

Are appropriate mechanisms and instruments put in place to ensure adequate coordination 
and information flow between BEREC and the Commission services? 

The  Commission  and  BEREC  have  appropriate  coordination  mechanisms  in  place.  The 
Commission participates in BEREC meetings and working groups, and appoints its experts. 
The  exchange  of  information  between  the  Commission  and  BEREC  is  sufficient,  and 
meetings are held on an ad hoc basis when necessary. The Commission tries not to exert 

46 

 
 
influence on BEREC's opinions, which have differed from the Commission's position in 
some cases. 

Effectiveness 

To what extent has BEREC achieved its objectives? What, if anything, could be done to 
make BEREC more effective in achieving these objectives? 

The data collected suggests that BEREC has been largely successful in fulfilling its four 
objectives. A number of factors that either support or impede BEREC’s effectiveness have 
emerged. 

•  Promoting  connectivity  and  access  to  VHCNs  -  The  organization's  support  for  the 
implementation of EU-level legislation, such as delivering timely guidelines, has been 
highly  effective.  However,  BEREC's  influence  is  limited  by  various  national 
circumstances,  such  as  limited  demand  for  VHCNs  and  the  uneven  pace  of 
transposition of the EECC across Member States. 

•  Promoting competition and investment  – BEREC has been successful in promoting 
competition  and  efficient  investment,  according  to  interview  and  survey  data.  The 
NRAs consulted commend BEREC's adaptability in navigating the rapidly evolving 
digital  innovation  landscape.  Stakeholders  have  differing  opinions  on  BEREC's 
effectiveness  in  promoting  competition  and  private  investment  in  connectivity. 
Industry  representatives  criticize  BEREC's  effectiveness  in  driving  investment  in 
connectivity,  citing  an  overly  pro-regulatory  approach  and  slow  pace  of  private 
investment. Some state that BEREC's output related to market analysis is adversely 
impacting  private  investment  in  connectivity.  A  consumer  organization  surveyed 
perceives  BEREC  as  effective  in  promoting  competition.  Although  most  National 
Regulatory Authorities find BEREC's market analysis output useful, some claim it's 
not  effective  in  their  national  context.  Overall,  while  BEREC  has  made  significant 
contributions, external stakeholders call for improvements. 

•  Contributing to the development of the internal  market  - Most stakeholders believe 
that BEREC has  been successful  in  contributing  to  the development  of the internal 
market.  However,  they  also  believe  that  BEREC's  potential  contribution  to  the 
harmonisation of the internal market is limited. Industry representatives assert that the 
European  electronic  communications  market  remains  fragmented  despite  BEREC's 
efforts. The evidence collected indicates that there is room for BEREC to enhance its 
efforts  in  ensuring  the  consistent  implementation  of  the  regulatory  framework  for 
electronic communications.  

•  Promoting the interests of the citizens of the Union - BEREC promotes EU citizens' 
interests and oversees the harmonized implementation of the Roaming and Intra-EEA 
Regulations.  It  helps  citizens  monitor  market  developments  and  contributes  to 
Universal  Service  Obligation.  BEREC  needs  to  prioritize  USO  and  consumer 
protection better. 

What are the internal factors that affect BEREC’s effectiveness? 

The study highlights two key factors that contribute to BEREC's effectiveness: facilitating 
best  practice  exchange  and  consistently  producing  high-quality  outputs.  However,  its 
effectiveness may face limitations due to diverging competences of NRAs, adaptability to 
changing  technology,  and  the  importance  of  independence.  Stakeholders  trust  BEREC's 
outputs  as  reliable  sources  of  information,  but  the  increasing  diversity  of  NRAs' 

47 

 
competencies is a challenge. BEREC needs to readdress its priorities and activities in line 
with  the  convergence  of  the  electronic  communications  market  and  the  broader  digital 
ecosystem to ensure its future effectiveness and independence. 

What external factors have affected the ability of BEREC to achieve the objectives? 

BEREC's work was impacted by recent global events, including the COVID-19 pandemic, 
the Russia-Ukraine war, and Brexit. The pandemic disrupted their day-to-day activities, but 
also  expanded  their  responsibilities  to  monitor  market  developments,  address  network 
congestion, and provide weekly reports on internet capacity. BEREC devised strategies to 
support  its  Ukrainian  counterparts  during  the  war  and  helped  refugees  stay  connected. 
However, the withdrawal of the British NRA due to Brexit led to a loss of expertise for 
BEREC. 

Have there been any unexpected or unintended effects of BEREC's functioning? And, if so, 
what are their consequences? What could explain these effects? 

BEREC is restricted to only NRAs participation by Article 5 of the BEREC Regulation. 
This limitation can potentially hinder its ability to adapt to market innovations.  

Efficiency 

What aspects of BEREC’s work are related to its ability to achieve its objectives in a timely 
manner? 

Overall,  BEREC  fulfils  its  tasks  and  activities  in  a  timely  manner  or  with  short  delays, 
using  resources  at  its  disposal  efficiently.  Several  aspects  contribute  to  the  timely 
achievement of its objectives. These include flexibility of work procedures, collaboration 
of  NRAs,  and  comprehensive  planning  at  BEREC.  BEREC  functions  in  an  agile  and 
flexible manner, accommodating new tasks and organizing extraordinary meetings online. 
Its bottom-up processes are efficient, but establishing additional Working Groups requires 
reallocation  of  resources.  BEREC  can  reprioritize  its  workload  and  draw  on  additional 
resources from NRAs to deliver outputs on time. Larger NRAs can mobilize more staff, 
while smaller NRAs find it challenging to find additional drafters and experts.  

Collaboration between Working Groups is critical for timely delivery at BEREC. BEREC 
can create cross-working-group workstreams, and all Working Groups can work together 
to  issue  a  common  position  paper.  96%  of  NRAs  believe  that  collaboration  between 
Working Groups in BEREC benefits the achievement of its objectives. However, industry 
representatives have mentioned occasional discrepancies in BEREC's work. An example is 
the  'BEREC's  preliminary  assessment  of  the  underlying  assumptions  of  payments  from 
large CAPs to ISPs' and the 'Report on the Internet ecosystem'. Although the WGs working 
on them could benefit from cooperation and synergy, the reports did not take each other's 
conclusions into account. Around 18% of tasks in the annual work programme at BEREC 
get carried over to the next year due to unforeseen additional work and reprioritization of 
tasks. The pace of work also slows down when BEREC starts exploring new themes and 
trends,  which  require  long  preliminary  exploration  and  consensus-building  between 
Member States. 

48 

 
 
 
To what extent has BEREC adapted to periods of high workload? 

BEREC faced multiple high-workload periods during 2019-2023 due to  various reasons 
including the adoption of the EECC, unforeseen requests for assistance by the European 
Commission, COVID-19 pandemic, and Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022. One of the 
primary  reasons  was  the  implementation  and  transposition  of  EECC,  which  led  to  44 
activities being carried out by BEREC. Unforeseen ad hoc tasks also contributed to high-
workload periods. Approximately one-third of tasks carried out by BEREC were ad hoc, 
which included assisting and advising the European Commission on various issues. Due to 
COVID-19  pandemic,  NRAs  had  additional  tasks,  making  it  challenging  to  allocate 
resources  to  BEREC-related  tasks.  BEREC  had  additional  activities  connected  to  the 
Russian invasion of Ukraine. Individual NRAs also experience periods of high workload 
when holding leadership positions at BEREC. BEREC copes well with increased workload, 
with  positive  assessments  from  NRAs  and  the  European  Commission.  Virtual  events 
increased participation rates. Delays sometimes occur, but they do not extend beyond a few 
months and do not affect the delivery of planned outputs. Most postponed  activities are 
internal workshops or specific requests from the Commission. 

To  what  extent  have  BEREC's  internal  organisation,  governance  and  procedures  been 
conducive to its efficiency? What administrative costs and burdens does it create and for 
whom? 

Several aspects affect BEREC’s efficiency and timeliness of deliverables. These include 
stakeholder consultations, collaboration and task distribution between NRAs, and the use 
of support from the BEREC Office.  

Most  NRAs  surveyed  view  BEREC's  working  procedures  positively.  According  to  the 
survey, 92% of the NRAs believe that BEREC’s governance structure is fit for purpose. 
However, representatives from the European Commission feel that BEREC’s lack of legal 
personality  and  decision-making  powers  is  a  limitation,  particularly  when  dealing  with 
cross-border,  European-level  issues.  Despite  the  positive  aspects  of  BEREC’s  internal 
organization and procedures, several  aspects negatively impact work efficiency, such as 
the lack of thorough and consistent introduction to the duties of newly appointed co-chairs 
of Working Groups. The study found that the internal collaborative platform BERECNet+ 
is  not  very  usable  and  inconsistent  across  Working  Groups.  NRAs  and  consumer 
organizations expressed concerns about the unbalanced content and workload of plenary 
sessions,  particularly  the  3rd  and  4th  ones.  This  leads  to  a  decrease  in  efficiency  and 
requires  more  resources  for  preparation  and  participation.  BEREC  has  improved  its 
stakeholder consultation  process  by introducing an additional call for stakeholder input. 
However,  some  stakeholders  still  find  the  deadlines  given  to  respond  to  public 
consultations too short to prepare high-quality and detailed responses. For example, the call 
for contributions on BEREC Guidelines detailing Quality of Service parameters lasted for 
only 16 days. 

BEREC faces several challenges, including varying competencies, lack of harmonization, 
and uneven resource allocation. These challenges reduce its efficiency and make it difficult 
to  find appropriate drafters. Each Member State  must ensure its NRA has the resources 
needed to participate fully in BEREC's work. 

NRAs  have  staff  who  work  part-time  on  BEREC-related  activities,  with  workload 
depending on their roles and the NRA's allocation of drafters to Working Groups. Work at 

49 

 
BEREC accounts for about one third of Contact Network members' total working time at 
an NRA. NRAs dedicate significant resources to  BEREC, with an average allocation of 
around 4-6 FTEs per NRA. During peak periods, bigger NRAs can dedicate more time to 
BEREC activities, allocating drafters to more or even all Working Groups. Smaller NRAs 
prioritize projects most relevant to them, but still follow other developments and contribute 
to discussions. 

Is there scope for improvement and simplification of processes and workflows? What other 
relevant avenues could assure the work of BEREC? 

To improve BEREC's processes and procedures, NRAs suggest the BEREC Office provide 
content-related support with data analysis. Advance notice from EU institutions would help 
to  manage  BEREC's  10%  ad  hoc  work.  To  increase  stakeholder  participation,  more 
information  sharing  is  required.  A  rolling  multiannual  agenda  would  improve  planning, 
while  targeted  training  for  NRA  representatives  would  improve  efficiency  and  resource 
utilization. 

Coherence 

To what extent has BEREC enabled the Commission to better focus on its policy related 
tasks? How well does it align with the overarching policy goals? 

The activities of BEREC support the Commission's policymaking work, and its outputs are 
seen as expert sources of information in the field of electronic communications. BEREC 
benefits from the expertise and network of NRAs at the national level, allowing it to gather 
data  from  operators  and  other  industry  stakeholders  relatively  quickly.  BEREC's 
responsiveness to the Commission's ad hoc requests allows it to support the Commission 
in its policymaking work efficiently. 

Does BEREC provide useful information in support of the policy process? 

The majority of respondents to the NRA survey reuse BEREC's outputs when contributing 
to  policymaking  at  the  national  level.  BEREC  guidelines  are  particularly  useful  when 
implementing  the  EECC,  and  its  recent  work  on  digital  markets  and  cybersecurity  has 
served as a basis for national-level policymaking. BEREC's opinions on Phase II process 
influence NRA's work and initiatives on markets, and BEREC's outputs are treated as soft 
law  at  the  national  level.  NRAs  outside  the  EU  use  BEREC's  outputs  and  positions  as 
reliable sources of information on electronic market developments. 

Relevance 

Did objectives and tasks respond successfully to the original needs of stakeholders? 

BEREC’s  objectives  and  tasks,  set  in  the  EECC,  correspond  to  the  original  needs  of 
stakeholders.  BEREC  is  a  significant  player  in  ensuring  the  implementation  of  the 
European regulatory framework and functions as a single platform for European National 
Regulatory Authorities. 

Do objectives and tasks respond to current needs? 

BEREC’s  ability  to  address  current  needs  varies  based  on  the  stakeholder  group  under 
consideration. 

50 

 
The survey results indicate that 93% of NRAs believe that BEREC's objectives and tasks 
align with their immediate needs. The collaboration and best practice sharing among NRAs 
and  BEREC's  work  related  to  analysing  new  legislation  and  producing  associated 
guidelines are seen as particularly relevant. The work of BEREC is especially relevant to 
NRAs  with  less  administrative  and  financial  capacity.  However,  variations  in  national 
contexts and diverging competences of the NRAs may impact BEREC's future relevance. 
Some NRAs suggested that variations in national contexts can potentially restrict the range 
of topics discussed within BEREC. Also, not all NRAs may perceive BEREC as equally 
relevant to their needs. 

BEREC's  role  in  providing  advice  to  the  Commission  is  highly  relevant,  especially  in 
preparing  legislation  related  to  electronic  communications.  The  digital  communications 
sector's  rapid  development  and  new  responsibilities  for  NRAs  and  BEREC  may  cause 
ambiguities. BEREC advises and assists the NRAs, the European Parliament, the Council, 
and  the  Commission  on  technical  matters  within  its  competence.  The  Council  and  the 
European Parliament have referenced some of BEREC's output in their documents. 

While  BEREC's  reports  and  monitoring  activities  are  seen  as  authoritative  sources  of 
information,  there  are  some  areas  where  its  relevance  could  be  strengthened.  Industry 
representatives highlight BEREC's handling of digital platforms and number-independent 
interpersonal  communication  as  examples  of  its  preference  for  traditional  regulatory 
approaches  over  adapting  to  the  evolving  landscape  of  the  digital  sector  Some  external 
stakeholders suggest an increased timeframe for delivering inputs to  BEREC as another 
possible improvement of the public consultation procedure. 

Are objectives and tasks revisited periodically to identify upcoming and urgent needs? 

Between  2019  and  2023,  BEREC  created  several  new  topic-specific  working  groups  in 
areas such as cybersecurity, sustainability, and regulation of digital markets, and its work 
programs  include  reports  on  emerging  digital  services,  platforms,  and  their  providers. 
BEREC is also actively engaged in addressing regulatory developments in areas such as 
net  neutrality  and  5G  deployment.  However,  the  evaluation  study  results  suggest  that 
BEREC  could  potentially  engage  more  proactively  with  its  wider  stakeholder  group  to 
identify upcoming and urgent needs. 

EU value added 

Could the identified outputs/results/impacts have been achieved without EU intervention? 

BEREC plays an important role in ensuring consistent implementation of the EU regulatory 
framework  for  electronic  communications.  BEREC  brings  together  expertise  from  27 
NRAs to maintain databases, collect data, and share good practices among Member States. 
The guidelines and methodologies developed by BEREC help NRAs implement the EU 
legal framework for electronic communications. BEREC's monitoring reports and expert 
inputs on technical topics are seen as authoritative sources of information by the European 
institutions. BEREC's primary stakeholders are NRAs, while external stakeholders view it 
as adding moderate added value to their organization. The most significant EU value added 
by BEREC is collecting and disseminating information. Overall, the impacts of BEREC 
presented  in  this  evaluation  would  have  been  difficult  to  achieve  without  an  EU 
intervention,  without  resulting  in  an  additional  administrative  burden  to  the  individual 
NRAs  and  the  Commission.  Both  the  Member  States  and  the  Commission  unilaterally 

51 

 
recognise the need for coordination among the NRAs in ensuring a smooth functioning of 
the internal market. 

Is it still valid to assume that the objectives of the intervention can best be met by action at 
EU level? 

BEREC contributes to the achievement of objectives of the EECC by advising and assisting 
NRAs, the Commission  and other  European institutions on matters related to  electronic 
communications.  To  this  end,  consulted  stakeholders,  including  NRAs,  industry  and 
consumer  representatives  agree  that  BEREC  is  best  positioned  to  coordinate  the 
implementation of the EECC and other European regulatory frameworks, as well as to act 
as  a  forum  of  knowledge  exchange  on  various  matters  related  to  the  electronic 
communications market. 

What would be the most likely consequences of stopping or withdrawing EU intervention? 

The hypothetical withdrawal of the EU intervention would result in loss of knowledge and 
increased  administrative  burden  for  all  parties  currently  associated  with  BEREC’s 
activities. Discontinuation of BEREC would lead to a fragmented market and additional 
compliance costs for industry representatives. It would also potentially negatively impact 
the future evolution of the electronic communications market. 

What is the additional value resulting from the EU intervention, compared to what could 
reasonably have been achieved (in terms of effectiveness and efficiency) by Member States 
acting at national and/or regional levels? 

BEREC and the BEREC Office work together to coordinate a Union-wide approach to the 
development and better functioning of the internal market for electronic communications. 
This  leads  to  common  targets,  better  regulatory  coordination,  information  sharing,  and 
enhanced knowledge. BEREC brings value by developing guidelines and methodologies 
on the adoption of the European Electronic Communications Code, providing data on the 
evolution of the electronic communications market, and offering advice to the European 
Commission and other institutions. 

Evaluation questions and main findings (BEREC Office):  

Implementation 

To what extent has the BEREC Office been operating according to the legal framework 
establishing it?  

BEREC Office operates in accordance with the legal framework established in 2019. The 
NRAs have reported that the BEREC Office is effective in supporting public consultations 
and Working Groups, but improvements are needed in drafting reports and disseminating 
regulatory  best  practices.  BEREC  Office  has  complied  with  the  staffing  and  financial 
regulations of the Commission, but its staffing levels in relation to Contract Agents and 
Seconded National Experts have consistently exceeded the Commission's guidance in its 
Draft General Budget. 

52 

 
 
Are there inconstancies and overlaps between the tasks carried out by the BEREC Office 
and other stakeholders? Are there inconstancies and overlaps between the tasks carried 
out by the BEREC Office and other stakeholders?  

Overall, no overlaps or gaps between the tasks carried out by the BEREC Office and other 
stakeholders have been identified. 

Are  appropriate  mechanisms  and  instruments  put  in  place  to  ensure  an  adequate 
coordination  and  information  flow  between  BEREC  and  the  BEREC  Office  and  the 
Commission services? 

The mechanisms and instrument in use need some improvement. The use of BERECNet+ 
system  for  exchanging  information  and  collaboration  needs  to  be  more  consistent  and 
streamlined, according to a report by the European Commission’s Internal Audit Service. 
The system is not fully and consistently introduced to NRA representatives. Additionally, 
the BEREC Office uses the EU Survey tool and the ARES NOMCOM system for managing 
final outputs of BEREC and data collection activities. 

Effectiveness 

To what extent has the BEREC Office achieved its objectives? What, if anything, could be 
done to make the BEREC Office more effective in achieving these objectives? 

 In line with Art. 5 of the BEREC Regulation, the primary objective of the BEREC Office 
is to support the smooth functioning of BEREC, providing professional and administrative 
support (collecting data from the NRAs, maintaining databases, organising meetings and 
events, among others). 

The  analysis  of  collected  data  suggests  and  the  NRAs  consulted  state  that  the  BEREC 
Office  has  been  largely  effective  in  fulfilling  its  primary  objective,  in  particular  in 
providing high-quality administrative support to the Working Groups, the Contact Network 
and the Board of Regulators. NRAs also underline the significance of the BEREC Office 
in supporting their regulatory work with regard to collecting data (which has allowed the 
Office  to  gain  extensive  knowledge  in  this  area),  maintaining  databases  and  providing 
professional assistance. The quality of the services provided are consistently highly ranked 
by  NRAs,  at  89%,  in  particular  during  challenging  external  conditions  (COVID-19 
pandemic and Russia's invasion of Ukraine). 

Communication between BEREC and the BEREC Office has been effective, and NRAs 
reported positive experiences from  interacting with  the BEREC Office, highlighting the 
smooth flow of information. The BERECNet+ system, which has been mentioned as an 
area of improvement (in particular during periods of high workload), is used for exchange 
of  information  and  to  store  working  documents  associated  with  the  work  of  Working 
Groups and the support provided by the BEREC Office.   

Some NRAs have argued that the Office could provide better professional support, notably 
in the areas of data collection and analysis, an area where the Office has identified the need 
and addressed it by hiring a data analyst. 

Staff turnover also has an impact on the Office's effectiveness,  as does the challenge of 
knowledge and expertise continuity due to the fact that some staff are seconded national 
experts (with a limit on time spent with the Office). 

53 

 
What  external  factors  have  affected  the  ability  of  the  BEREC  Office  to  achieve  its 
objectives? 

 Evidence suggests that, as in the case of BEREC, the COVID-19 pandemic and Russia’s 
invasion of Ukraine were the predominant factors impacting the functioning of the BEREC 
Office,  for  the  former  regarding  the  challenge  of  facilitating  a  seamless  transition  to 
teleworking,  ensuring  staff  safety,  and  maintaining  continued  support  for  BEREC's 
operations and for the latter heightened concerns over physical and IT security given that 
the BEREC Office is based in Riga. 

Efficiency 

What aspects of the BEREC Office’s work are related to its ability to achieve its objectives 
in a timely manner? 

 Data indicates that the BEREC Office achieved most of its assigned objectives on time 
and  with  high  efficiency  (96%  percent  of  NRAs  agree).  The  Office  applied  annual  and 
multiannual planning cycles that are synchronised with BEREC itself and anticipated ad 
hoc  work  in  advance.  The  Office  has  also  shown  that  it  is  able  to  reprioritise  tasks 
depending  on  needs  and  urgency.  Flexible  working  arrangements  and  teleworking  – 
introduced even before the 2020 pandemic – contribute to timely delivery.  

Teleworking,  videoconferencing  and  online  voting  tools  helped  to  avoid  disruption  of 
BEREC’s  operation  during  the  COVID-19  pandemic  and  to  reach  record  numbers  of 
experts  participating  in  meetings,  contributing  to  the  successful  delivery  of  the  Work 
Programme. 

To what extent has the BEREC Office adapted to periods of high workload? 

BEREC Office adapts  to increased workload  stemming  from  additional activities of the 
BEREC  Office  resulting  from  COVID-19,  the  adoption  of  the  European  Electronic 
Communications Code in 2019-2020, extraordinary external circumstances of the war in 
Ukraine, the  extremely  high  inflation in  the host  Member State and the  energy crisis  in 
Europe  in  2022  rather  well  (92%  of  NRAs  agree),  due  to  the  agile  way  of  distributing 
responsibilities,  resources  and  activities  inside  the  Agency,  as  well  as  the  use  of  digital 
tools. 

To  what  extent  is  the  Agency’s  organisation  (governance,  structure,  allocation  of 
resources, etc.) fit for purpose? 

Evidence gathered and analysed suggests that the organisation of the BEREC Office is fit 
for purpose and, given the small size of the Agency, the BEREC Office is efficient and 
timely in carrying out its activities, agreed by the majority of NRAs. Yet, several areas of 
potential improvements exist, in particular with regard to the use of IT tools. The BEREC 
Office is one the smallest EU Agencies. According to the BEREC Office’s establishment 
plan, the number of temporary agents assigned to the BEREC Office remained stable during 
the evaluation period, with the BEREC Office receiving one additional TA post for the role 
of the Accounting Officer in 2023. 

The Office has used a number of approaches to ensure sufficient capacity to carry out the 
tasks and activities arising from the BEREC Regulation, in particular the use of contract 
staff and seconded national experts and outsourcing services to the European Commission 

54 

 
and  the  BEREC  Office  Liaison  Office  established  by  the  Latvian  Government.  These 
decisions are contrary to the Commission's firm guidance on recruiting CAs, as they are 
not foreseen in and have a direct and long-term impact on the Union Budget (build-up of 
pension rights). In addition, each contract agent recruited beyond the strict guidance means 
that the Agency indirectly reduces its operational budget to pay for these additional contract 
agents.  The  Commission  provides  strict  guidance  on  the  ceiling  of  CAs  and  SNEs  per 
agency in the Working Document Part III of Draft General Budget185. The BEREC Office 
has exceeded the guidance issued by the Commission every year since in 2019.  

The Office has furthermore set up a Liaison Office (through a Service Level Agreement 
(SLA)  signed  between  the  BEREC  Office  and  the  Latvian  Government,  published  in 
2022)28. While liaison offices are a specific type of entity, with a set of clearly defined tasks, 
linked to accommodating agency staff and their family in the respective Member State, the 
BEREC Office has adopted a broad interpretation of this concept, relying on the Liaison 
Office  for  providing  support  to  the  BEREC  Office  in  various  areas  (assistance  to  the 
Agency’s staff and experts as well as family members during their stay in the Republic of 
Latvia, raising the visibility of the Agency, coordination with Latvian Authorities, keeping 
of records and circulation of documents and providing clerical and administrative support 
to the Agency). In effect, the Agency relies on the Liaison Office to have access to more 
human resources than in the case it relied solely on its budget lines devoted to remuneration 
of the Agency’s staff.  

According to Art. 4 of the SLA, the Liaison Office staff are employed by the Ministry of 
Transport of Latvia. The BEREC Office covers the ’costs of the Host Member State’ related 
to the operation of the Liaison Office to a maximum payable amount of EUR 165 000 per 
year. While there is a demand for more services form the Office by BEREC and NRAs, it 
should be clear that in cases of other decentralised agencies, nearly all Host Member States 
have set up contact points for agency staff and their families related to questions of settling 
in  the  Member  State.  These  services  are  usually  provided  by  and  paid  for  by  the 
governments of the host Member States. 

Staff turnover has been shown to negatively impact efficiency, especially related to contract 
agents.  According  to  the  BEREC  Office,  contract  agents,  especially  those  performing 
administrative functions are the category most affected by staff turnover, for the following 
reasons: complexity of the job as one person usually takes responsibility for several work 
areas,  difficulty  of  staff  spouses  finding  employment  in  Latvia,  and  perceived  low 
correction coefficient. The turnover results in an additional workload for the BEREC Office 
as it has to fill new positions and onboard new staff, which can take 3-6 months. 

Is the balance between operational staff and administrative support staff appropriate? 

 Being one of the smallest European Agencies, the Office and having to comply with the 
financial and staff regulations of the European Commission, administrative activities of the 
BEREC  Office  related  to  its  responsibilities  as  an  Agency  make  up  a  large  share  of  its 
workload.  In  contrast  to  large  agencies,  the  BEREC  Office  has  limited  efficiency  gains 
from obligatory activities linked to its obligations as an Agency. On the other hand, some 

28 

https://www.berec.europa.eu/en/document-categories/berec-office/others/service-level-agreement-
between-the-agency-for-support-for-the-body-of-european-regulators-for-electronic-communications-
and-the-government-of-the-republic-of-latvia 

55 

 
 
NRAs request more targeted support to WGs e.g. in the areas of data analysis and reporting. 
Improvements  could  be  made  by  having  more  staff  focusing  on  providing  operational 
support to BEREC. 

What is the scope for improvement and simplification of processes and workflows? What 
other relevant ways could assure the work of the BEREC Office? 

 Cooperation  between  the  Office  and  other  EU  agencies  for  the  provision  of  horizontal 
administrative  services  could  benefit  the  Office.  As  interviewed  BEREC  Office  and 
European Commission representatives acknowledge, the Office is trying to find synergies 
with other agencies – in particular through the EU Agencies Network. A Special report of 
the European Court of Auditors, in its turn, underlines the potential for more cooperation 
between  agencies  –  especially  those  operating  in  the  same  policy  areas.  BEREC  Office 
could  explore  more  opportunities  for  sharing  services  with  other  agencies  to  approach 
similar tasks.  

A better distribution of work between BEREC and the BEREC Office would reduce the 
additional  workload  of  the  Office.  Some  ad  hoc  tasks  can  be  implemented  by  BEREC 
directly,  without  BEREC  Office  support.  The  BEREC  Office  could  also  adopt  a  more 
streamlined approach to data governance and arrive at efficiency gains in all areas of data 
collection performed by the BEREC Office, streamlining the use of BERECNet+ and using 
centralised means for standardised submission of data from different NRAs. Streamlining 
and standardisation also applies to collecting data for the purposes of public consultations, 
in particular relying on Art. 5 of the BEREC regulation, that the Office ‘collect information 
from  NRAs’  and  to  ‘produce,  on  the  basis  of  the  information  collected,  regular  draft 
reports’. 

56