www.bundesnetzagentur.de
The role of BEREC in Articles 7/7a proceedings Brussels, 20 January 2017
Sören Nübel,
Acting Head of Unit & Member of BEREC Chair team 2016
Revised European Regulatory Framework (2009)
2
Authorisation Directive
Access Directive
Universal Service Direct.
Data Protection Directive
Framework Directive
(Art. 95)
Dir 2009/140/EC Better Regulation
Dir 2009/136/EC Citizens‘ Rights
Reg. 1211/2009 BEREC + Office
New Reg.: Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) a. BEREC Office
Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC)
Established by EC Regulation 1211/2009 published in December 2009 together with new EU Directives for electronic communication
Replaces ERG (dissolved with Dec. 2010/299/EU of 21/05/10)
Develops cooperation among NRAs, and between NRAs and the Commission
to ensure consistent application of the framework in all Member States
thereby contributing to the development of the internal market
serves as a body of reflection, debate and advice for European Parliament, Council and Commission
Board of Regulators
Responsible for all regulatory decisions
BEREC + Office
Reg. 1211/2009
Management Committee
Office
Community Body administrative + prof. support
in control of
supporting
Experts Working Groups (EWGs)
NRAs experts – fundament of BEREC
BEREC – 2-tier-model - 1
Structure of BEREC
Board of Regulators (BoR) – 28 EU NRA members
EC, EEA, Accession NRAs & Switzerland observers
BoR decision making forum
4 Plenary meetings per year
Expert Working Groups – conduct work for approval of BoR.
Experts from NRAs, 9 EWGs for 2017 Work Programme
BEREC Office to provide support to ensure smooth functioning
Management Committee to oversee BEREC Office
5
Board of Regulators
Regulatory decision making group
BEREC
(not an agency!)
The Office
Community Body, funded from the EU
budget
in control of
supporting
Office is controlled by the Management committee
Office is accountable to Management committee
Management committee replaces Administrative Board in regular European agencies, identical with BoR (+1 Cion), thus NRAs are in full control of the supporting Office
BEREC – 2-tier-model - 2
Role and tasks of BEREC
Set out in Articles 2 and 3 of the BEREC Regulation and in the Directives (and the TSM Regulation)
Nature of tasks
Advisory vis-à-vis the Commission
Harmonisation
Cooperation and assistance to NRAs
Cross-border dispute resolution
Information gathering and reporting
Numbering
Article 7/7a
7
8
Recommendation on
Relevant markets
2007/879/EC; 2014/710/EU
Guidelines on market analysis
and assessment of
significant market power (SMP)
Market analysis:
Assessment of effective competition
or significant market power
Cancellation, confirmation or
imposition of obligations
National
level
EC level
ECNS RF Remedies process
Results
can be
vetoed
Remedies
cannot be
vetoed
Definition of relevant market
Art. 7/a FD
Art
. 14-1
6 F
D
ECNS Regulatory Process (1)
3 Stages: market definition: relevant market (list of 4 (5) markets)
market analysis: designation of SMP operator(s)
choice of remedy: imposition of regulatory obligation(s)
If an operator is found to be dominant (either individually or jointly), at least one specific regulatory obligation must be imposed which must be proportionate to remedy the problem, justified in the
light of the Art. 8 FD objectives and based on the nature of the problem
Remedies must be effective: solve the lack of competition
Remedies are to be chosen from the list in the AD/UD (“toolbox”)
ECNS Regulatory Process – Art. 7/7a
NRA notifies (consolidation/co-regulation) draft regulatory measure to EC, BEREC and the other EU NRAs acc. to Art. 7/7a FD:
EC may issue a no-comments letter; make comments (NRA
shall take utmost account);
or open a phase II investigation (where intended measure would create barrier to single market or EC has serious doubts as to compatibility with EU law)
Article 7 or 7a FD: Phase II
Article 7 FD, if EC has serious doubts concerning the market defintion or SMP finding and Article 7a FD where the serious doubts concern the proposed regulatory remedies
These two cases have different severity and therefore involve different treatment, deadlines and voting majorities:
Art. 7 FD: Veto power of the EC on stages 1 + 2 (market def. + SMP),
Art. 7a FD: no veto power of the EC on the application of remedies
EC may only make comments and issue a recommendation addressed to the NRA, which has to be taken into utmost account by the NRA when adopting the final measure
However, in both cases BEREC shall give an opinion, which the EC shall take utmost account of before issuing a decision(Article 7 (7); Article 7a (5))
Article 7/7a – BEREC involvement
Art 3.1.a BEREC Regulation:
BEREC shall be to deliver opinions on draft measures of NRAs
concerning market definition, designation of undertakings with
significant market power and imposition of remedies, in acc.
with Article 7 / 7a FD , and to cooperate and work together with
the NRAs in acc. with Art. 7 / 7a FD.
12
The role of BEREC (1)
BEREC Office sets up a team of experts from other NRAs (or exceptionally from the BO) when a Phase II was opend by the EC (ad-hoc EWG)
Mandate to prepare an independent BEREC opinion on the justification of the Commission’s serious doubts on the case
BEREC Office coordinates the work of EWG
5-7 experts including the Rapporteur
The EWG co-operates with the notifying NRA (e.g. additional information on request by EWG, meeting, telephone conference)
The EWG co-operates with the EC (e.g. information of EC about establishment of EWG, timetable, meeting, telephone conference)
The role of BEREC (2)
EWG elaborates position whether the Commission’s serious doubts on the case are justified
The Board of Regulators votes on the adoption of the position issued by the experts to form BEREC‘s opinion for this Phase II case
Publication of the BEREC opinion on the Phase II investigation on the BEREC website
EC shall take utmost account of the opinion of BEREC before issueing a decision
Article 7a (4): where BEREC shares the EC‘s serious doubts regarding a regulatory obligation, it cooperates closely with the NRA for finding the most appropriate and effective measure for the particular case
Pro-competitive regulation effectively implemented, relying
on competition law principles
Effective Competition
Efficient investment and consumer benefits
Consistency and developing the internal market
No veto on remedies, but a complex Art. 7a – co-regulation procedure shifting the balance towards the European level
Flexibility for remedies
Art.7-veto for market analysis
NRAs Euro. Commission
BEREC /Art.7a
Summary and Conclusion: Regulatory Balance
Thank you for your attention!
Questions?
Sören Nübel
Acting Head of Unit
International Policy Issues and Regulatory Strategy