LeX-Ray

Directives 2002/19/EC ( 4 ) , 2002/20/EC ( 5 ) , 2002/21/EC ( 6 ) and 2002/22/EC ( 7 ) of the European Parliament and of the Council have been substantially amended. Since further amendments are to be made, those Directives should be recast in the interests of clarity.

The functioning of the five Directives which are part of the existing regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services, namely Directives 2002/19/EC, 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC and 2002/22/EC, and PECD of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 8 ) , is subject to periodic review by the Commission, with a view, in particular, to determining the need for modification in light of technological and market developments.

In its communication or 6 May 2015 setting out a Digital Single Market Strategy for Europe, the Commission stated that its review of the telecommunications framework would focus on measures that aim to provide incentives for investment in high-speed broadband networks, bring a more consistent internal market approach to radio spectrum policy and management, deliver conditions for a true internal market by tackling regulatory fragmentation, ensure effective protection of consumers, a level playing field for all market players and consistent application of the rules, as well as provide a more effective regulatory institutional framework.

This Directive is part of a ‘Regulatory Fitness’ (REFIT) exercise, the scope of which includes four Directives, namely 2002/19/EC, 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC and 2002/22/EC, and BEREC of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 9 ) . Each of those Directives contains measures applicable to providers of electronic communications networks and of electronic communications services, consistently with the regulatory history of the sector under which undertakings were vertically integrated, namely, active in both the provision of networks and of services. The review offers an occasion to recast the four Directives in order to simplify the current structure with a view to reinforcing its consistency and accessibility in relation to the REFIT objective. It also offers the possibility to adapt the structure to the new market reality, where the provision of communications services is no longer necessarily bundled to the provision of a network. As provided in the Interinstitutional Agreement of 28 November 2001 on a more structured use of the recasting technique for legal acts ( 10 ) , recasting consists in the adoption of a new legal act which incorporates in a single text both the substantive amendments which it makes to an earlier act and the unchanged provisions of that act. The proposal for recasting deals with the substantive amendments which it makes to an earlier act, and on a secondary level, includes the codification of the unchanged provisions of the earlier act with those substantive amendments.

This Directive creates a legal framework to ensure freedom to provide electronic communications networks and services, subject only to the conditions laid down in this Directive and to any restrictions in accordance with Article 52(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ( TFEU ), in particular measures regarding public policy, public security and public health, and consistent with Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the ‘Charter’).

This Directive is without prejudice to the possibility for each Member State to take the necessary measures to ensure the protection of its essential security interests, to safeguard public policy and public security, and to permit the investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences, taking into account that any limitation to the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by the Charter, in particular in Articles 7, 8 and 11 thereof, such as limitations regarding the processing of data, are to be provided for by law, respect the essence of those rights and freedoms and be subject to the principle of proportionality, in accordance with Article 52(1) of the Charter.

The convergence of the telecommunications, media and information technology sectors means that all electronic communications networks and services should be covered to the extent possible by a single European electronic communications code established by means of a single Directive, with the exception of matters better dealt with through directly applicable rules established by means of regulations. It is necessary to separate the regulation of electronic communications networks and services from the regulation of content. Therefore, this Directive does not cover the content of services delivered over electronic communications networks using electronic communications services, such as broadcasting content, financial services and certain information society services, and is without prejudice to measures taken at Union or national level in respect of such services, in accordance with Union law, in order to promote cultural and linguistic diversity and to ensure the defence of media pluralism. The content of television programmes is covered by AMSD of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 11 ) . The regulation of audiovisual policy and content aims at achieving general interest objectives, such as freedom of expression, media pluralism, impartiality, cultural and linguistic diversity, social inclusion, consumer protection and the protection of minors. The separation between the regulation of electronic communications and the regulation of content does not affect the taking into account of the links existing between them, in particular in order to guarantee media pluralism, cultural diversity and consumer protection. Within the limits of their competences, competent authorities should contribute to ensuring the implementation of policies aiming to promote those objectives.

This Directive does not affect the application to radio equipment of Directive 2014/53 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 12 ) , but does cover car radio and consumer radio receivers, and consumer digital television equipment.

In order to allow national regulatory and other competent authorities to meet the objectives set out in this Directive, in particular concerning end-to-end interoperability, the scope of the Directive should cover certain aspects of radio equipment as defined in Directive 2014/53 and consumer equipment used for digital television, in order to facilitate access for end-users with disabilities. It is important for national regulatory and other competent authorities to encourage network operators and equipment manufacturers to cooperate in order to facilitate access by end-users with disabilities to electronic communications services. The non-exclusive use of radio spectrum for the self-use of radio terminal equipment, although not related to an economic activity, should also be the subject of this Directive in order to ensure a coordinated approach with regard to their authorisation regime.

Certain electronic communications services under this Directive could also fall within the scope of the definition of ‘information society service’ set out in Article 1 of Directive 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 13 ) . The provisions of that Directive that govern information society services apply to those electronic communications services to the extent that this Directive or other Union legal acts do not contain more specific provisions applicable to electronic communications services. However, electronic communications services such as voice telephony, messaging services and electronic mail services are covered by this Directive. The same undertaking, for example an internet service provider, can offer both an electronic communications service, such as access to the internet, and services not covered by this Directive, such as the provision of web-based and not communications-related content.

The same undertaking, for example a cable operator, can offer both an electronic communications service, such as the conveyance of television signals, and services not covered under this Directive, such as the commercialisation of an offer of sound or television broadcasting content services, and therefore additional obligations can be imposed on such an undertaking in relation to its activity as a content provider or distributor, in accordance with provisions other than those of this Directive, without prejudice to the conditions laid in an annex to this Directive.

The regulatory framework should cover the use of radio spectrum by all electronic communications networks, including the emerging self-use of radio spectrum by new types of networks consisting exclusively of autonomous systems of mobile radio equipment that is connected via wireless links without a central management or centralised network operator, and not necessarily within the exercise of any specific economic activity. In the developing 5G wireless communications environment, such networks are likely to develop in particular outside buildings and on the roads, for transport, energy, research and development, eHealth, public protection and disaster relief, the Internet of Things, machine-to-machine and connected cars. As a result, the application by Member States, based on Article 7 of Directive 2014/53, of additional national requirements regarding the putting into service or use of such radio equipment, or both, in relation to the effective and efficient use of radio spectrum and avoidance of harmful interference should reflect the principles of the internal market.

The requirements concerning the capabilities of electronic communications networks are constantly increasing. While in the past the focus was mainly on growing bandwidth available overall and to each individual user, other parameters such as latency, availability and reliability are becoming increasingly important. The current response towards that demand is to bring optical fibre closer and closer to the user, and future ‘very high capacity networks’ require performance parameters which are equivalent to those that a network based on optical fibre elements at least up to the distribution point at the serving location can deliver. In the case of fixed-line connection, this corresponds to network performance equivalent to that achievable by an optical fibre installation up to a multi-dwelling building, considered to be the serving location. In the case of wireless connection, this corresponds to network performance similar to that achievable based on an optical fibre installation up to the base station, considered to be the serving location. Variations in end-users’ experience which are due to the different characteristics of the medium by which the network ultimately connects with the network termination point should not be taken into account for the purposes of establishing whether a wireless network could be considered as providing similar network performance. In accordance with the principle of technology neutrality, other technologies and transmission media should not be excluded, where they compare with that baseline scenario in terms of their capabilities. The roll-out of such ‘very high capacity networks’ is likely to further increase the capabilities of networks and pave the way for the roll-out of future wireless network generations based on enhanced air interfaces and a more densified network architecture.

Definitions need to be adjusted to ensure that they are in line with the principle of technology neutrality and to keep pace with technological development, including new forms of network management such as through software emulation or software-defined networks. Technological and market evolution has brought networks to move to internet protocol (IP) technology, and enabled end-users to choose between a range of competing voice service providers. Therefore, the term ‘publicly available telephone service’, which is exclusively used in USD and widely perceived as referring to traditional analogue telephone services, should be replaced by the more current and technological neutral term ‘voice communications service’. Conditions for the provision of a service should be separated from the actual definitional elements of a voice communications service, namely, a publicly available electronic communications service for originating and receiving, directly or indirectly, national or national and international calls through a number or numbers in a national or international numbering plan, whether such a service is based on circuit switching or packet switching technology. It is the nature of such a service that it is bidirectional, enabling both parties to communicate. A service which does not fulfil all those conditions, such as for example a ‘click-through’ application on a customer service website, is not such a service. Voice communications services also include means of communication specifically intended for end-users with disabilities using text relay or total conversation services.

The services used for communications purposes, and the technical means of their delivery, have evolved considerably. End-users increasingly substitute traditional voice telephony, text messages (SMS) and electronic mail conveyance services by functionally equivalent online services such as Voice over IP, messaging services and web-based e-mail services. In order to ensure that end-users and their rights are effectively and equally protected when using functionally equivalent services, a future-oriented definition of electronic communications services should not be purely based on technical parameters but rather build on a functional approach. The scope of necessary regulation should be appropriate to achieve its public interest objectives. While ‘conveyance of signals’ remains an important parameter for determining the services falling into the scope of this Directive, the definition should cover also other services that enable communication. From an end-user’s perspective it is not relevant whether a provider conveys signals itself or whether the communication is delivered via an internet access service. The definition of electronic communications services should therefore contain three types of services which may partly overlap, that is to say internet access services as defined in point (2) of Article 2 of LDMOIAR of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 14 ) , interpersonal communications services as defined in this Directive, and services consisting wholly or mainly in the conveyance of signals. The definition of electronic communications service should eliminate ambiguities observed in the implementation of the definition as it existed prior to the adoption of this Directive and allow a calibrated provision-by-provision application of the specific rights and obligations contained in the framework to the different types of services. The processing of personal data by electronic communications services, whether as remuneration or otherwise, should comply with GDPR of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 15 ) .

In order to fall within the scope of the definition of electronic communications service, a service needs to be provided normally in exchange for remuneration. In the digital economy, market participants increasingly consider information about users as having a monetary value. Electronic communications services are often supplied to the end-user not only for money, but increasingly and in particular for the provision of personal data or other data. The concept of remuneration should therefore encompass situations where the provider of a service requests and the end-user knowingly provides personal data within the meaning of GDPR or other data directly or indirectly to the provider. It should also encompass situations where the end-user allows access to information without actively supplying it, such as personal data, including the IP address, or other automatically generated information, such as information collected and transmitted by a cookie. In line with the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Court of Justice) on Article 57 TFEU ( 16 ) , remuneration also exists within the meaning of the TFEU if the service provider is paid by a third party and not by the service recipient. The concept of remuneration should therefore also encompass situations in which the end-user is exposed to advertisements as a condition for gaining access to the service, or situations in which the service provider monetises personal data it has collected in accordance with GDPR.

Interpersonal communications services are services that enable interpersonal and interactive exchange of information, covering services like traditional voice calls between two individuals but also all types of emails, messaging services, or group chats. Interpersonal communications services only cover communications between a finite, that is to say not potentially unlimited, number of natural persons, which is determined by the sender of the communication. Communications involving legal persons should fall within the scope of the definition where natural persons act on behalf of those legal persons or are involved at least on one side of the communication. Interactive communication entails that the service allows the recipient of the information to respond. Services which do not meet those requirements, such as linear broadcasting, video on demand, websites, social networks, blogs, or exchange of information between machines, should not be considered to be interpersonal communications services. In exceptional circumstances a service should not be considered to be an interpersonal communications service if the interpersonal and interactive communication facility is a minor and purely ancillary feature to another service and for objective technical reasons cannot be used without that principal service, and its integration is not a means to circumvent the applicability of the rules governing electronic communications services. As elements of an exemption from the definition the terms ‘minor’ and ‘purely ancillary’ should be interpreted narrowly and from an objective end-user’s perspective. An interpersonal communications feature could be considered to be minor where its objective utility for an end-user is very limited and where it is in reality barely used by end-users. An example of a feature that could be considered to fall outside the scope of the definition of interpersonal communications services might be, in principle, a communication channel in online games, depending on the features of the communication facility of the service.

Interpersonal communications services using numbers from national and international numbering plans connect with publicly assigned numbering resources. Those number-based interpersonal communications services comprise both services to which end-users numbers are assigned for the purpose of ensuring end-to-end connectivity and services enabling end-users to reach persons to whom such numbers have been assigned. The mere use of a number as an identifier should not be considered to be equivalent to the use of a number to connect with publicly assigned numbers and should therefore, in itself, not be considered to be sufficient to qualify a service as a number-based interpersonal communications service. Number-independent interpersonal communications services should be subject to obligations only where public interests require that specific regulatory obligations apply to all types of interpersonal communications services, regardless of whether they use numbers for the provision of their service. It is justified to treat number-based interpersonal communications services differently, as they participate in, and hence also benefit from, a publicly assured interoperable ecosystem.

The network termination point represents a boundary for regulatory purposes between the regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services and the regulation of telecommunications terminal equipment. Defining the location of the network termination point is the responsibility of the national regulatory authority. In light of the practice of national regulatory authorities, and given the variety of fixed and wireless topologies, the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (‘BEREC’) should, in close cooperation with the Commission, adopt guidelines on common approaches to the identification of the network termination point, in accordance with this Directive, in various concrete circumstances.

Technical developments make it possible for end-users to access emergency services not only by voice calls but also by other interpersonal communications services. The concept of emergency communication should therefore cover all interpersonal communications services that allow such emergency services access. It builds on the emergency system elements already enshrined in Union law, namely a public safety answering point (‘PSAP’) and a most appropriate PSAP as defined in Regulation 2015/758 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 17 ) , and on emergency services as defined in Commission Delegated Regulation 2013/305 ( 18 ) .

National regulatory and other competent authorities should have a harmonised set of objectives and principles to underpin their work, and should, where necessary, coordinate their actions with the authorities of other Member States and with BEREC in carrying out their tasks under this regulatory framework.

The tasks assigned to competent authorities by this Directive contribute to the fulfilment of broader policies in the areas of culture, employment, the environment, social cohesion and town and country planning.

The regulatory framework should, in addition to the existing three primary objectives of promoting competition, the internal market and end-user interests, pursue an additional connectivity objective, articulated in terms of outcomes: widespread access to and take-up of very high capacity networks for all citizens of the Union and Union businesses on the basis of reasonable price and choice, effective and fair competition, open innovation, efficient use of radio spectrum, common rules and predictable regulatory approaches in the internal market and the necessary sector-specific rules to safeguard the interests of citizens of the Union. For the Member States, the national regulatory and other competent authorities and the stakeholders, that connectivity objective translates, on the one hand, into aiming for the highest capacity networks and services economically sustainable in a given area, and, on the other, into pursuing territorial cohesion, in the sense of convergence in capacity available in different areas.

Progress towards the achievement of the general objectives of this Directive should be supported by a robust system of continuous assessment and benchmarking by the Commission of Member States with respect to the availability of very high capacity networks in all major socio-economic drivers such as schools, transport hubs and major providers of public services, and highly digitised businesses, the availability of uninterrupted 5G coverage for urban areas and major terrestrial transport paths, and the availability to all households in each Member State of electronic communications networks which are capable of providing at least 100 Mbps, and which are promptly upgradeable to gigabit speeds. To that end, the Commission should continue monitoring the performance of Member States, including, by way of an example, indexes that summarise relevant indicators on the Union’s digital performance and track the evolution of Member States in digital competitiveness, such as the Digital Economy and Society Index, and, where necessary, establish new methods and new objective, concrete and quantifiable criteria for benchmarking the effectiveness of Member States.

The principle that Member States should apply Union law in a technologically neutral fashion, that is to say that a national regulatory or other competent authority should neither impose nor discriminate in favour of the use of a particular type of technology, does not preclude the taking of proportionate steps to promote certain specific services where justified in order to attain the objectives of the regulatory framework, for example digital television as a means for increasing radio spectrum efficiency. Furthermore, that principle does not preclude taking into account that certain transmission media have physical characteristics and architectural features that can be superior in terms of quality of service, capacity, maintenance cost, energy efficiency, management flexibility, reliability, robustness and scalability, and, ultimately, performance, which can be reflected in actions taken with a view to pursuing the various regulatory objectives.

Both efficient investment and competition should be encouraged in tandem, in order to increase economic growth, innovation and consumer choice.

Competition can best be fostered through an economically efficient level of investment in new and existing infrastructure, complemented by regulation, where necessary, to achieve effective competition in retail services. An efficient level of infrastructure-based competition is the extent of infrastructure duplication at which investors can reasonably be expected to make a fair return based on reasonable expectations about the evolution of market shares.

It is necessary to give appropriate incentives for investment in new very high capacity networks that support innovation in content-rich internet services and strengthen the international competitiveness of the Union. Such networks have enormous potential to deliver benefits to consumers and businesses across the Union. It is therefore vital to promote sustainable investment in the development of those new networks, while safeguarding competition, as bottlenecks and barriers to entry remain at the infrastructure level, and boosting consumer choice through regulatory predictability and consistency.

This Directive aims to progressively reduce ex ante sector-specific rules as competition in the markets develops and, ultimately, to ensure that electronic communications are governed only by competition law. Considering that the markets for electronic communications have shown strong competitive dynamics in recent years, it is essential that ex ante regulatory obligations are imposed only where there is no effective and sustainable competition on the markets concerned. The objective of ex ante regulatory intervention is to produce benefits for end-users by making retail markets effectively competitive on a sustainable basis. Obligations at wholesale level should be imposed where otherwise one or more retail markets are not likely to become effectively competitive in the absence of those obligations. It is likely that national regulatory authorities are gradually, through the process of market analysis, able to find retail markets to be competitive even in the absence of wholesale regulation, especially taking into account expected improvements in innovation and competition. In such a case, the national regulatory authority should conclude that regulation is no longer needed at wholesale level, and assess the corresponding relevant wholesale market with a view to withdrawing ex ante regulation. In doing so, the national regulatory authority should take into account any leverage effects between wholesale and related retail markets which might require the removal of barriers to entry at the infrastructure level in order to ensure long-term competition at the retail level.

Electronic communications are becoming essential for an increasing number of sectors. The Internet of Things is an illustration of how the radio signal conveyance underpinning electronic communications continues to evolve and shape societal and business reality. To derive the greatest benefit from those developments, the introduction and accommodation of new wireless communications technologies and applications in radio spectrum management is essential. As other technologies and applications relying on radio spectrum are equally subject to growing demand, and can be enhanced by integrating or combining them with electronic communications, radio spectrum management should adopt, where appropriate, a cross-sectorial approach to improve the efficient use of radio spectrum.

Strategic planning, coordination and, where appropriate, harmonisation at Union level can help ensure that radio spectrum users derive the full benefits of the internal market and that Union interests can be effectively defended globally. For those purposes it should be possible to adopt multiannual radio spectrum policy programmes, where appropriate. The first such programme was established by Decision No 243/2012/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 19 ) , setting out policy orientations and objectives for the strategic planning and harmonisation of the use of radio spectrum in the Union. It should be possible for those policy orientations and objectives to refer to the availability and efficient use of radio spectrum necessary for the establishment and functioning of the internal market, in accordance with this Directive.

National borders are increasingly irrelevant in determining optimal radio spectrum use. Undue fragmentation amongst national policies result in increased costs and lost market opportunities for radio spectrum users and slows down innovation to the detriment of the proper functioning of the internal market and prejudice to consumers and the economy as a whole.

The radio spectrum management provisions of this Directive should be consistent with the work of international and regional organisations dealing with radio spectrum management, such as the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) and the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT), in order to ensure the effective management of and harmonisation of the use of radio spectrum across the Union and between the Member States and other members of the ITU.

In accordance with the principle of the separation of regulatory and operational functions, Member States should guarantee the independence of the national regulatory and other competent authorities with a view to ensuring the impartiality of their decisions. This requirement of independence is without prejudice to the institutional autonomy and constitutional obligations of the Member States or to the principle of neutrality with regard to the rules in Member States governing the system of property ownership laid down in Article 345 TFEU. National regulatory and other competent authorities should be in possession of all the necessary resources, in terms of staffing, expertise, and financial means, for the performance of their tasks.

Certain tasks pursuant to the Directive, such as ex ante market regulation, including the imposition of obligations for access and interconnection, and the resolution of disputes between undertakings are tasks which should be undertaken only by national regulatory authorities, namely, bodies which are independent both from the sector and from any external intervention or political pressure. Unless otherwise provided, Member States should be able to assign other regulatory tasks provided for in this Directive either to the national regulatory authorities or to other competent authorities. In the course of transposition, Member States should promote the stability of competences of the national regulatory authorities with regard to the assignment of tasks which resulted from the transposition of the Union electronic communications regulatory framework as amended in 2009, in particular those related to market competition or market entry. Where tasks are assigned to other competent authorities, those other competent authorities should seek to consult the national regulatory authorities before taking a decision. Pursuant to the principle of good cooperation, national regulatory and other competent authorities should exchange information for the exercise of their tasks.

This Directive does not include substantive provisions on open internet access or roaming and is without prejudice to the allocation of competences to national regulatory authorities in Regulation 2012/531 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 20 ) and in LDMOIAR. However, this Directive provides, in addition, for national regulatory authorities to be competent for assessing and monitoring closely market access and competition issues which potentially affect the rights of end-users to an open internet access.

The independence of the national regulatory authorities was strengthened in the review of the electronic communications regulatory framework completed in 2009 in order to ensure a more effective application of the regulatory framework and to increase their authority and the predictability of their decisions. To that end, express provision had to be made in national law to ensure that, in the exercise of its tasks, a national regulatory authority is protected against external intervention or political pressure liable to jeopardise its independent assessment of matters coming before it. Such outside influence makes a national legislative body unsuited to act as a national regulatory authority under the regulatory framework. For that purpose, rules had to be laid down at the outset regarding the grounds for the dismissal of the head of the national regulatory authority in order to remove any reasonable doubt as to the neutrality of that body and its imperviousness to external factors. In order to avoid arbitrary dismissals, dismissed members should have the right to request that the competent courts verify the existence of a valid reason to dismiss, among those provided for in this Directive. Such dismissals should relate only to the personal or professional qualifications of the head or member. It is important that national regulatory authorities have their own budget allowing them, in particular, to recruit a sufficient number of qualified staff. In order to ensure transparency, that budget should be published annually. Within the limits of their budget, they should have autonomy in managing their resources, human and financial. In order to ensure impartiality, Member States that retain ownership of, or control, undertakings contributing to the budget of the national regulatory or other competent authorities through administrative charges should ensure that there is effective structural separation of activities associated with the exercise of ownership or control from the exercise of control over the budget.

There is a need to further reinforce the independence of the national regulatory authorities to ensure the imperviousness of its head and members to external pressure, by providing minimum appointment qualifications, and a minimum duration for their mandate. Furthermore, to address the risk of regulatory capture, ensure continuity and enhance independence, Member States should consider limiting the possibility of renewing the mandates of the head or members of the board and set up an appropriate rotation scheme for the board and the top management. This could be arranged, for instance, by appointing the first members of the collegiate body for different periods in order for their mandates, as well as that of their successors, not to lapse at the same moment.

National regulatory authorities should be accountable for, and should be required to report on, the way in which they are exercising their tasks. That obligation should normally take the form of an annual reporting obligation rather than ad hoc reporting requests, which, if disproportionate, could limit their independence or hinder them in the exercise of their tasks. Indeed, according to the case-law of the Court of Justice ( 21 ) , extensive or unconditional reporting obligations may indirectly affect the independence of an authority.

Member States should notify the Commission of the identity of the national regulatory and other competent authorities. For authorities competent for granting rights of way, it should be possible to fulfil the notification requirement by a reference to the single information point established pursuant to Directive 2014/61 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 22 ) .

The least onerous authorisation system possible should be used to allow the provision of electronic communications networks and services in order to stimulate the development of new communications services and pan-European communications networks and services and to allow service providers and consumers to benefit from the economies of scale of the internal market.

The benefits of the internal market to service providers and end-users can be best achieved by general authorisation of electronic communications networks and of electronic communications services other than number-independent interpersonal communications services, without requiring any explicit decision or administrative act by the national regulatory authority and by limiting any procedural requirements to a declaratory notification only. Where Member States require notification by providers of electronic communications networks or services when they start their activities, such notification should not entail administrative cost for the providers and could be made available via an entry point at the website of the competent authorities. In order to support effective cross-border coordination, in particular for pan-European operators, BEREC should establish and maintain a database of such notifications. Competent authorities should transmit only complete notifications to BEREC. Member States should not impede the provision of networks or services in any way, including on grounds of incompleteness of a notification.

Notifications should entail a mere declaration of the provider’s intention to commence the provision of electronic communications networks and services. A provider should be required to complement that declaration only with the information set out in this Directive. Member States should not impose additional or separate notification requirements.

Contrary to the other categories of electronic communications networks and services as defined in this Directive, number-independent interpersonal communications services do not benefit from the use of public numbering resources and do not participate in a publicly assured interoperable ecosystem. It is therefore not appropriate to subject those types of services to the general authorisation regime.

When granting rights of use for radio spectrum, for numbering resources or rights to install facilities, the competent authorities should inform the undertakings to which they grant such rights of the relevant conditions. Member States should be able to lay down such conditions for the use of radio spectrum in individual rights of use or in the general authorisation.

General authorisations should contain only conditions which are specific to the electronic communications sector. They should not be made subject to conditions which are already applicable by virtue of other existing national law, in particular regarding consumer protection, which is not specific to the communications sector. For instance, competent authorities should be able to inform undertakings about the applicable environmental and town-and-country-planning requirements. Conditions imposed under the general authorisation do not affect the determination of applicable law pursuant to RIR of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 23 ) .

The conditions that could be attached to general authorisations should cover specific conditions governing accessibility for end-users with disabilities and the need of public authorities and emergency services to communicate between themselves and with the general public before, during and after major disasters.

It is necessary to include the rights and obligations of undertakings under general authorisations explicitly in such authorisations in order to ensure a level playing field throughout the Union and to facilitate cross-border negotiation of interconnection between public electronic communications networks.

General authorisations entitle undertakings providing electronic communications networks and services to the public to negotiate interconnection under the conditions of this Directive. Undertakings providing electronic communications networks and services other than to the public can negotiate interconnection on commercial terms.

Competent authorities should duly take into account, when attaching conditions to general authorisations and applying administrative charges, situations in which electronic communications networks or services are provided by natural persons on a not-for-profit basis. In the case of electronic communications networks and services not provided to the public it is appropriate to impose fewer and lighter conditions, if any, than are justified for electronic communications networks and services provided to the public.

Specific obligations imposed on undertakings providing electronic communications networks and electronic communications services in accordance with Union law by virtue of their designation as having significant market power as defined in this Directive should be imposed separately from the general rights and obligations under the general authorisation.

It is possible that undertakings providing electronic communications networks and services need confirmation of their rights under the general authorisation with respect to interconnection and rights of way, in particular to facilitate negotiations with other, regional or local, levels of government or with service providers in other Member States. To that end competent authorities should provide declarations to undertakings either upon request or alternatively as an automatic response to a notification under the general authorisation. Such declarations should not by themselves constitute entitlements to rights, nor should any rights under the general authorisation, rights of use or the exercise of such rights depend upon a declaration.

It should be possible to impose administrative charges on undertakings providing electronic communications services in order to finance the activities of the national regulatory or other competent authority in managing the general authorisation system and the granting of rights of use. Such charges should be limited to cover the actual administrative costs for those activities. To that end, transparency should be ensured in the income and expenditure of national regulatory and other competent authorities by means of annual reporting about the total sum of charges collected and the administrative costs incurred, in order to allow undertakings to verify that they are in balance.

Systems for administrative charges should not distort competition or create barriers to market entry. A general authorisation system renders it impossible to attribute administrative costs and hence charges to individual undertakings, except for the granting of rights of use for numbering resources, radio spectrum and for rights to install facilities. Any applicable administrative charges should be in line with the principles of a general authorisation system. An example of a fair, simple and transparent alternative for those charge attribution criteria could be a turnover related distribution key. Where administrative charges are very low, flat rate charges, or charges combining a flat rate basis with a turnover related element could also be appropriate. To the extent that the general authorisation system extends to undertakings with very small market shares, such as community-based network providers, or to service providers the business model of which generates very limited revenues even in the case of significant market penetration in terms of volumes, Member States should assess the possibility to establish an appropriate de minimis threshold for the imposition of administrative charges.

Member States might need to amend rights, conditions, procedures, charges and fees relating to general authorisations and rights of use where this is objectively justified. Such proposed amendments should be duly notified to all interested parties in good time, giving them adequate opportunity to express their views. Unnecessary procedures should be avoided in the case of minor amendments to existing rights to install facilities or rights of use for radio spectrum or for numbering resources when such amendments do not have an impact on third parties’ interests. Minor amendments to rights and obligations are amendments which are mainly administrative, do not change the substantial nature of the general authorisations and the individual rights of use and thus cannot generate any competitive advantage over other undertakings.

Considering the importance of ensuring legal certainty and in order to promote regulatory predictability to provide a safe environment for investments, in particular for new wireless broadband communications, any restriction or withdrawal of any existing rights of use for radio spectrum or for numbering resources or right to install facilities should be subject to predictable and transparent justifications and procedures. Hence, stricter requirements or a notification mechanism could be imposed in particular where rights of use have been assigned pursuant to competitive or comparative procedures and in the case of harmonised radio spectrum bands to be used for wireless broadband electronic communications services (‘wireless broadband services’). Justifications referring to effective and efficient use of radio spectrum and technological evolution could rely on technical implementing measures adopted under Decision No 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 24 ) . Furthermore, except where proposed amendments are minor, where general authorisations and individual rights of use for radio spectrum need to be restricted, withdrawn or amended without the consent of the holder of the right, this can take place after consulting interested parties. As restrictions or withdrawals of general authorisations or rights may have significant consequences for their holders, the competent authorities should take particular care and assess in advance the potential harm that such measures may cause before adopting such measures.

National regulatory authorities, other competent authorities and BEREC need to gather information from market players in order to carry out their tasks effectively, including assessing the compliance of general terms and conditions with this Directive without suspending the applicability of those terms and conditions during the assessment. It may, by way of exception, also be necessary to gather information from other undertakings active in sectors that are closely related to the electronic communications services sector, such as content providers, that hold information which could be necessary for them to exercise their tasks under Union law. It might also be necessary to gather such information on behalf of the Commission, to allow it to fulfil its respective obligations under Union law. Requests for information should be proportionate and not impose an undue burden on undertakings. Information gathered by national regulatory and other competent authorities should be publicly available, except in so far as it is confidential in accordance with national rules on public access to information and subject to Union and national rules on commercial confidentiality.

In order to ensure that national regulatory authorities carry out their regulatory tasks in an effective manner, the data which they gather should include accounting data on the retail markets that are associated with wholesale markets where an undertaking is designated as having significant market power and as such are regulated by the national regulatory authority. The data should also include data which enable the national regulatory authority to assess compliance with conditions attached to rights of use, the possible impact of planned upgrades or changes to network topology on the development of competition or on wholesale products made available to other parties. Information regarding compliance with coverage obligations attached to rights of use for radio spectrum is key to ensure completeness of the geographical surveys of network deployments. In that respect, the competent authority should be able to require that information is provided at disaggregated local level with a granularity adequate to conduct a geographical survey of networks.

To alleviate the burden of reporting and information obligations for network and service providers and the competent authority concerned, such obligations should be proportionate, objectively justified and limited to what is strictly necessary. In particular, duplication of requests for information by the competent authority and by BEREC, and the systematic and regular proof of compliance with all conditions under a general authorisation or a right of use, should be avoided. Undertakings should be aware of the intended use of the information sought. Provision of information should not be a condition for market access. For statistical purposes, a notification may be required from providers of electronic communications networks or services when they cease activities.