Activites

• 1997/07/11 Final act published in Official Journal
  • Decision 1997/1336
  • OJ L 183 11.07.1997, p. 0012
• 1997/06/17 Final act signed
• 1997/06/17 End of procedure in Parliament
• #2008
• 1997/05/26 Council Meeting
• 1997/05/14 Decision by Parliament, 3rd reading
  • T4-0225/1997 summary

    In adopting the report by Mr Karsten Friedrich HOPPENSTEDT (PPE, D), the European Parliament accepted the joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee on trans-European telecommunications networks. The agreement stipulated that the networks could take various forms, including, for example, networks linking universities and research centres or those capable of linking, on a Community scale, all those involved in the health sector (doctors, hospitals, laboratories etc.). On the technical side, Parliament obtained satisfaction on a number of points: - concentration solely on real applications making use of networks which are available and can be used by broad sections of the general public; - assessment of the social consequences of the deployment of networks (e.g. with regard to teleworking); - the transnational character of projects to be guaranteed; - account to be taken of the linguistic needs and specific requirements of less developed regions; - in the cultural sphere, action should not be confined to preserving the heritage but should also promote creative work. The agreement also provided for the drawing-up of an exhaustive list of those of the common-interest projects which it was felt should enjoy a certain priority. These are generic services (European directories, a trans-European 'kiosk', electronic signature, etc.), applications of distance learning of public interest, services to SMEs, telematics services for transport, environment, health and culture. Following protracted negotiations, the agreement also included satellite communications as a common-interest project. Lastly, as regards institutional questions, the solution allows the Commission the elbow-room and flexibility which will be vital when issuing calls for tenders. Common-interest projects are identified in Annex I to the text. The annex is to be reviewed, using the codecision procedure, after three years. However, the actual projects will be selected by a committee on the basis of a work programme drawn up by the Commission. �

• 1997/05/13 Debate in Parliament
  • Debate in Parliament summary

    The rapporteur welcomed the successful conclusion of the conciliation procedure and commented that, even though the budget would not permit any major strides forward, it would contribute to the development of the information society. He was also delighted that the revision of the ‘lists of projects of common interest’ would occur before 31 December 2001. Within this revision, priority should still be given to generic services and to telematics for the environment and health. The rapporteur stressed once again that the problem of satellite services should be tackled better in the future. While qualifying the compromise reached between Parliament and Council as very good, Mr Bangemann noted the need to create trans-European networks (in the areas of transport, energy and telecommunications) in order to draw every possible benefit from completion of the single market. He also stressed the importance of developing satellite services, particularly to reach outlying regions. He considered in this respect that content had been dealt with satisfactorily. Finally, he was prepared to do everything in his power to ensure that the list of priorities could be updated in 2000.

• 1997/04/24 Report tabled for plenary, 3rd reading
  • A4-0166/1997
• 1997/04/16 Joint text approved by Conciliation Committee co-chairs
  • 3707/1997
• 1997/03/07 Formal meeting of Conciliation Committee
• #1948
• 1996/09/24 Council Meeting
• 1996/07/17 Decision by Parliament, 2nd reading
  • T4-0396/1996 summary

    In adopting the recommendation for second reading by Mr Karsten Friedrich HOPPENSTEDT (PPE, D) on the trans-European telecommunications networks, Parliament adopted the common position of the Council with a series of amendments which incorporated the guidelines already evolved at first reading. In particular, emphasis was laid on the development of generic services and the need to concentrate on real-world applications using the available networks and not merely demonstration projects. Parliament also proposed changes to the network priorities. To this end, it called for particular attention to be paid to Euro-ISDN networks and, where there is a real demand, to IBC networks, for transboundary interregional initiatives to be stimulated, and for action strengthening ties with third countries (the countries of the Mediterranean, Central and Eastern Europe and the CIS etc.) to be undertaken. At the same time, Parliament called for ex-post assessment of the social consequences of the deployment of networks whenever possible. In the sphere of transport, Parliament asked for priority to be given to integrated multimodal transport and to other environment-friendly modes. With regard to teleworking, it insisted that workers' rights must be preserved and that measures should be taken to prevent the risks of social isolation that could be involved with teleworking. It also insisted that selected projects must be transnational. In addition, it called for Generic Services applications to be interoperable and asked that they use local Community languages so that all may benefit from the innovations brought by the networks. Finally, Parliament proposed that telematics and teleadministration projects should be developed so as to improve communication in the sphere of public administration. In relation to commitology, Parliament reiterated its request for an advisory committee, with which it would be associated. �

• 1996/07/16 Debate in Parliament
  • Debate in Parliament summary

    The rapporteur, Mr Hoppenstedt (EPP, D), supported the 27 amendments made to the common position of the Council, especially those dealing with the taking of decisions jointly by Parliament and the Council for the selection of projects relating to trans-European telecommunications networks. Commissioner Bangemann, for his part, announced that the Council would reject the amendments, with the result that Parliament would have to initiate the conciliation procedure.

• 1996/06/26 Vote in committee, 2nd reading
  • A4-0222/1996
• 1996/04/18 Committee referral announced in Parliament, 2nd reading
• #1910
• 1996/03/21 Council Meeting
  • 04137/1/1996 summary

    The common position of the Council largely adhered to the Commission's approach. The changes made to the original proposal mainly had the aim of taking better account of the terms of the Treaty or existing Community provisions (such as the IDA programme, the Euro-ISDN guidelines and the TEN-Transport guidelines). The Council incorporated, in whole or in part, 14 of the 22 amendments incorporated by the Commission in its amended proposal. The main amendments accepted by the Council served to: - stress the development of applications, services and networks to enable citizens and enterprises (especially SMEs) to position themselves to best advantage in the information society, drawing attention to the less developed regions; - stress the importance of Euro-ISDN as a means of communication which can already be used to carry out common-interest projects; - recall the need to coordinate trans-European projects with comparable national or regional initiatives; - propose a more concise wording for the designation of infrastructure available for the implementation of projects; - take up the idea that the implementation of trans-European networks should meet real needs, and detail the RTD programmes with which they should be coordinated; - stress needs not met by market forces alone (projects of collective interest); - specify the nature of the work programme drafted by the Commission; - state that the new networks, whether fixed or mobile, could be used for generic services; - devote special attention to the social consequences of teleworking; - add further details regarding cultural and linguistic heritage (inserting the artistic aspect of heritage and the aspect 'dissemination of local content in local languages'). The Council was unable to accept the EP's amendments seeking to: - stress the need to use in synergetic fashion all forms of aid which could support TEN activities; - stress the importance of having non-proprietary tools for the development of applications; - add to the point on 'distance education and training' (defining vocational training policy); - add to the point on 'telematics and transport' elements which the EP regarded as having priority; - add further details to the point on 'telematics services for the job market'; - insert clearly the transnational character of projects. �

• 1996/03/20 Modified legislative proposal published
  • COM(1996)0108 summary

    The amended proposal incorporated, in whole or in part, 22 of the 35 amendments adopted by the EP at first reading. The amendments accepted by the Commission: - called for special attention for SMEs and less developed or peripheral regions; - underlined the importance of the Euro-ISDN; - stressed coordination with other initiatives; - stressed applications corresponding to real needs not met by market forces: these corresponded to the applications of collective interest for which priority was proposed; - brought the text of the proposal closer to the wording of the Treaty; - clarified the real nature of the work programme being prepared by the Commission at this stage; - stressed the importance of providing non-proprietary tools for development of new applications; - drew attention to important social aspects of teleworking; - added to the points on 'distance education and training', telematics and transport, telematics services for the job market, and cultural and linguistic heritage. The Commission also accepted in principle the amendments: - stressing the need for coordination of Community programmes: it stated that effective coordination needed to be ensured between the implementation of the trans-European telecommunications networks, which must address real-world concerns, excluding experimental projects, and the various Community programmes (specific RTD programmes, programmes for SMEs, INFO 2000, Media 2); - mentioning the need to use, on a synergetic basis, all appropriate forms of aid for TEN activities; - inserting a clear definition of the transnational nature of the projects: it stated that projects must be transnational in the sense that they should be conceived to satisfy needs existing in several Member States and to be implemented in several Member States. �

• 1996/02/01 Debate in Parliament
  • Debate in Parliament summary

    The rapporteur, Mr HOPPENSTEDT, noted that SMEs were not encouraged to acquire the necessary means to make use of trans-European telecommunications networks and believed that the global transnational development of these networks was being neglected. Even though it was not possible a priori to define specific projects, he was insistent that priorities should be set and adopted a strategic view of the objectives of trans-European telecommunications networks. He also called for the social repercussions to be taken into account and for assurances to be given on the compatibility of the applications at European level; he also wanted to see duplication avoided. Finally, in anticipation of the common position being adopted by the Telecommunications Council on 21 March, the rapporteur wanted to see a formal debate held, with Parliament included. Commissioner BANGEMANN stated that of the 53 amendments that had been tabled he was prepared to accept 13 as they were and 15 with some modification, while rejecting a further 25. As regards comitology, he added that the Commission wanted to respect the ‘modus vivendi’ that had already been approved on this issue. He also said that the Commission had set up an information office for interested parties. As far as funding was concerned, Mr Bangemann pointed out that this had been put at some ECU 250 billion; private finance would therefore have to be called in, since the public purse could not support such a cost; finally, he supported the idea of adopting a glossary of definitions.

  • T4-0036/1996 summary

    In adopting the report by Mr Karsten Friedrich HOPPENSTEDT (PPE, D) the European Parliament approved the principle of trans-European telecommunications networks and the proposed guidelines, but expressed some criticism both on the strategy proposed and on the procedure suggested. The report highlights the need to: - attach particular importance to generic services in order to guarantee interoperability at European level and to avoid costly duplication; - set priorities so as to have a strategic vision of the actual medium-term objectives of the trans-European networks. Failing which, there was likely to be a proliferation of small-scale projects leading to inter-sectoral competition and a risk of inconsistency; - give priority to applications using ISDN and, in particular, Europe-ISDN; - take account of the transnational aspect for the selection of projects and attach special attention to those which had an exemplary value and could have a multiplier effect; - assess the social and societal impact of the new applications in order to help citizens and enterprises enter the Information Society; - take account of the cultural aspect, covering not only heritage, but also creation, with the use of local languages so that users can make the best possible use of the new applications. With regard to decision-making (commitology), the EP rejected the choice of a Regulatory Committee to set priorities and select projects. It proposed, therefore, the use of the Advisory Committee procedure, as was the case for the trans-European energy networks. �

• 1995/12/19 Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
  • A4-0336/1995
• #1888
• 1995/11/27 Council Meeting
• 1995/07/10 Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
• 1995/05/31 Legislative proposal published
  • COM(1995)0224 summary

    The proposal for a decision aimed to lay down guidelines on the objectives, priorities and main areas of action proposed in the field of trans-European telecommunications networks. The creation of trans-European telecommunications networks had four objectives: - facilitating the transition towards the information society, in particular with a view to satisfying social needs and improving the quality of life; - improving the competitiveness of firms and strengthening the internal market; - strengthening economic and social cohesion; - accelerating the development of new growth-area activities leading to job creation (e.g. multimedia services and electronic information services). The Commission proposed implementing European action in this sector at three levels: the applications layer, the generic services layer and the basic networks layer. The main priorities were as follows: - Applications: a network linking universities and research centres; distance education; health telematics; transport telematics; telematics for the environment; teleworking; telematic services for SMEs; a network for public administrations; electronic procedures for the award of contracts; city information highways; library access services; telematic services for the job market; cultural and linguistic heritage; access for citizens to services; - Generic services: implementation of operational trans-European generic services (electronic mail, file transfers, access to databases, video services); progressive extension of generic services towards a multimedia environment; introduction of non-proprietary digital signature as a basis for open service provision and mobility of use; - Basic networks: ISDN; commercial introduction of Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) and other IBC networks; interoperation of existing and IBC networks. The Union's action would involve the selection of several projects of common interest which could benefit from financial support. These projects of common interest would be selected in successive stages: - the Commission would establish a work programme, in cooperation with sector operators, with a view to determining the sectors in which projects of common interest could be proposed; - on the basis of this programme, it would launch calls for proposals; - the Commission would select the projects of common interest from among the proposals, assisted by a committee composed of representatives of the Member States; - the list of projects retained would be subject to a Council decision. The initiatives for projects should be submitted by the private sector or by an association between the public and private sectors and should address users' needs. Community funding would be largely targeted at the field of applications, and particularly those applications of collective interest. �

Documents

• Legislative proposal published: COM(1995)0224
• Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading: A4-0336/1995
• Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
• Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T4-0036/1996
• Modified legislative proposal published: COM(1996)0108
• Council position published: 04137/1/1996
• Committee recommendation tabled for plenary, 2nd reading: A4-0222/1996
• Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
• Decision by Parliament, 2nd reading: T4-0396/1996
• Joint text approved by Conciliation Committee co-chairs: 3707/1997
• Report tabled for plenary, 3rd reading: A4-0166/1997
• Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
• Decision by Parliament, 3rd reading: T4-0225/1997
• : Decision 1997/1336
• : OJ L 183 11.07.1997, p. 0012

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)