More Centralized Control Needed for Pan-European Services, ERG Says
Telecom regulators cautiously backed an EC proposal for more authority to enforce Europe’s e-communications laws. In a formal response Tues. to Information Society & Media Comr. Viviane Reding, the European Regulators Group (ERG) said that while a pan-EU regulatory body isn’t necessary for the next 3-4 years, after 2010 growth in VoIP and other cross-border services will require a more central regulatory approach. But the group again urged Reding to drop the idea of giving the EC “veto” power over competition remedies.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Last Nov., Reding asked ERG members to comment on several proposals aimed at eliminating inconsistences in the adoption and use of Europe’s e-communications regulatory framework (NRF). She broached the idea of an EC “veto” over remedies -- it already has such power over market analyses, boosting ERG’s existing powers in specific areas -- remaking the body into an independent, “federal” EU-level telecom supervisor or some combination (CD Jan 31 p5).
The ERG wants remedial consistency and regulatory coordination viewed separately, since they present different challenges for national regulatory authorities (NRAs) and the ERG, it said. Coming years will see a continuing need for concerted action to address unjustified inconsistencies in competition remedies. NRAs urged the EC to “use us” to the full potential of the role and powers they already have.
By 2010, when changes to the NRF arising from current EC review are in effect, everything that can be done to improve consistency should already be done, the ERG said. From then on, as cross-border services increase, “there is merit in considering the enhancement of the role and duties” of the ERG, it said. And “there is a strong argument to be made that the ERG would be the natural forum for regulatory coordination” in cross-border and pan-EU markets, it said. Regulators continue to oppose either an EC veto on remedies or -- the latest proposal -- a veto on remedies plus power to impose remedies on national regulatory authorities, on the grounds that national authorities know their markets better than the EC does, the ERG wrote.
Any transfer of power to the ERG must be legally and practically feasible, the ERG warned. It again urged the Commission to study the proposals’ legal implications as soon as possible. Ceding EC functions or powers to a super- regulator “will inevitably raise concerns” for the European Parliament, which has resisted such transfers to other centralized bodies in other contexts, the ERG said. And any pooling of sovereignty requires approval by govts., it said.
The ERG letter is a good starting point for better cooperation with the EC, said Reding and ERG Chmn. Roberto Viola. The sides agreed to keep an open mind on how to work together more effectively. Reding is expected to unveil her plans for revising the National Regulatory Framework in July.