The European Union’s new telecoms single market rules are still controversial, and getting more so.
The European Ombudsman flip-flopped over whether the lack of public input was justified, according to documents obtained by POLITICO.
The European Competitive Telecommunications Association complained to the Ombudsman that there were not enough opportunities for input between May and September 2013, when the Commission was writing the proposals.
The telecoms single market package, passed last June, will eliminate roaming charges and ensure equal Internet access across the 28 member countries.
In an internal draft decision, the Ombudsman’s office agreed with ECTA on the main thrust of its complaint. But then changed its mind.
“The Commission failed to carry out an adequate public consultation in accordance with the general principles and minimum standards … without providing a sufficient explanation to justify the limited consultation it did carry out,” said the August 8 draft.
In short, the Commission had erred.
Yet a month later, a revised decision, which was ultimately adopted, disagreed.
“There are no grounds for further inquiries into the allegation that the Commission failed to carry out a proper inter-service consultation,” the Ombudsman concluded, adding the Commission had not improperly handled the affair.
Honor Mahony, the Ombudsman’s press officer, said the U-turn was “not unusual.”
“At times the cabinet, under instruction of the Ombudsman, can make alterations. This is quite normal and often follows internal discussion,” she said.
ECTA declined to respond.
The original draft of the Ombudsman’s ruling included an in-depth analysis about why the Commission was unjustified in its decision not to launch a thorough consultation process.
“The complainant argues that these events (and the further meetings and speeches the Commission refers to in this context) cannot be considered to qualify as a proper public consultation. The Ombudsman finds this argument convincing,” it reads.
And continues, “In order to be useful, a consultation would normally need to be carried out on the basis of a document setting out the issues on which the Commission wishes to consult interested stakeholders.”
The decision also addressed each of the Commission’s three reasons why its consultation was sufficient, rejecting its arguments and siding with ECTA’s version of events in each case.
Yet much of this text was later cut.
The September version only stated: “It is not necessary to engage in a detailed assessment of the merits of each of these arguments. Clearly, the two events in June 2013 constituted public consultation but not an extensive consultation.”
On the question of whether the Commission was justified in rushing through the proposals due to demands from the Council, the Ombudsman’s first draft found the Commission’s urgency was self-imposed and it “has not established that the limited public consultation carried out in the present case was justified.”
But in September the decision read: “The Ombudsman finds that the Commission had valid reasons for curtailing its public consultation in this case and that its failure to abide by the minimum standards, as laid down in the 2002 Communication, was justified.”
This article was first published on POLITICO Pro.