Post on 15-Jan-2016
description
BEREC: a new agency model?
Marco Zinzani, LL.M.
15th Ius Commune Conference
Leuven, 25 November 2010
Department of International and European Law 2
Network governance in network industries
EU regulatory models in network infrastructure industries: evolutionary patterns
Loose network of regulators
Enhanced network of regulators
Formalized coordination
European agency Hybrid model
Department of International and European Law 3
Network governance: legal perspective
Legitimacy concerns
Institutional balance
Accountability gaps
- Political accountability- Legal accountability- Accountability networks- Transparency and participation
- Delegation of powers- Meroni doctrine
Department of International and European Law 4
EU telecom regulation framework
EU regulatory models in telecoms
1997: Independent Regulators Group (IRG)
2002: European Regulators Group (ERG)
2009: BEREC and the Office
Department of International and European Law 5
The new institutional context
BEREC and the Office
Commission
Member StatesNRAs
•long and laborious creation (EECMA, BERT, GERT, BEREC)
•complex institutional design
•decentralized enforcement: NRAs
•harmonization: Commission
•interdependencies/ coordination mechanisms
•shortcomings, legal uncertainty
Committees and WGs
Department of International and European Law 6
Two-tier institutional structure
BEREC
Board of Regulators Heads NRAs. Commission = observer
Chair and Vice Chair
Expert Working Groups
The Office
Management CommitteeHeads NRAs + Commission
Administrative Manager
Staff
The Office= European agency
Independent status, permanent body, legal personality, specific tasks
BEREC= not a regulatory agency, nor an executive agency
No legal personality
Department of International and European Law 7
ERG and BEREC
• ‘BEREC should continue the work of the ERG’ (Recital 8, Regulation EC No
1211/2009)
• ‘(…) the role previously performed by the ERG is strengthened and given greater recognition in the revised framework, through the establishment of BEREC itself and its enhanced participation in the development of regulatory policy (…). In particular according to that Regulation, BEREC is to replace the ERG (…)’
(Recital 4, Commission Decision 2010/299/EU)
Department of International and European Law 8
ERG: network?
General characteristics of networks ERG
Voluntary formation Commission Decision 2002/627/EC
Decision-making process: agreement and consensus
Consensus driven. Opinions accommodating wide range of views.
Homogeneity among members Heads of NRAs. Lack of hierarchically superior organization.
Policy outcomes: not binding decisions/ soft law
Advice to Commission.NRAs: substantial powers.
Lack of formal rules, cooperation mechanisms through experimentation
Exchange of best practices, information and mutual education.Small secretariat.
Conclusion: ERG= example of a network in the ‘technical’ sense of the word
Department of International and European Law 9
BEREC: network?
General characteristics of networks BEREC
Voluntary formation Regulation (EC) No 1211/2009.Official mission.
Decision-making process: agreement and consensus
2/3 majority. Simple majority in Art. 7a remedy proceedings.
Homogeneity among members Heads of NRAs. Lack of hierarchically superior organization.
Policy outcomes: not binding decisions/ soft law
Advice. Obligation for Commission and NRAs to take utmost account of opinions. Active role: Art. 7 proceedings, Art. 7b, 15(1).
Lack of formal rules, cooperation mechanisms through experimentation
Clearly defined tasks. Detailed cooperation mechanisms. Office.
Conclusion: BEREC= hybrid institutional (network) model
Department of International and European Law 10
Tasks of BEREC
• advisory vis-à-vis the Commission• harmonisation• cooperation and assistance to NRAs• cross-border dispute resolution• information gathering and reporting• Article 7/7a Directive 2002/21/EC
– together with the Commission, deep involvement in approving national measures to regulate operators with market power
Department of International and European Law 11
Focus on Article 7/7a procedures
• Market definition, designation of undertakings with significant market power and imposition of remedies
• Art. 7 notifications: scrutiny by Commission• Commission veto over market definition• Communications Committee (Cocom/comitology) replaced by
BEREC • No Commission veto on remedies but new procedure applies
– Serious doubts on remedies – 3 month pause– BEREC to decide on merit of Commission’s serious doubts– If agrees, BEREC to work with NRA on appropriate remedy – NRA
can amend or withdraw– If BEREC disagrees, Commission may, unless it withdraws its
doubts, issue a non-binding but persuasive recommendation– NRA needs to provide “reasoned justification” if it does not
comply with recommendation
Department of International and European Law 12
Critical remarks
• failure of the Commission to establish a regulatory agency
• original two-tier institutional structure• remodeled network as key player in regulatory
approach • network: absorbed into institutional framework of
the EU– BEREC replaces
• ERG• Communications Committee (Cocom) for Art. 7 cases
• relationship with the Commission: ?• BEREC’s role dependent on quality advice
Department of International and European Law 13
Institutional balance
• final regulatory power rests on Commission or national authorities concerned– balance of regulatory competence not
affected– Meroni respected (NRA’s powers, not
Commission’s)• But: indirect (de facto) legal effect of
BEREC opinions
Department of International and European Law 14
Accountability
• Where does the main forum of accountability lay? – EU level? Commission/ EP/ European court– national level? National parliaments/ national courts– both levels concurrently?
• Legal and practical limits• Need for new mechanisms of cooperation between
forums • Lavrijssen & Hancher (2008): mixed
parliamentarian commission• National courts: ?
Department of International and European Law 15
Transparency and participation
• Art. 18-22 BEREC Regulation• Transparency: discretion Board of regulators• Stakeholders’ consultation:
BEREC Deliverable Scope Obligation to take utmost account
of?
Public consultation needed?
Publication needed?
1) BEREC Opinion •On draft decisions, recommendations and guidelines of the Commission•To the Commission on national draft measures of NRAs•To the EP and Council•To NRAs on cross-border disputes
Yes No Yes
2) BEREC Report • to the Commission on any matter regarding electronic communications within its competence•General papers on issues not covered by the Regulation
No Depending on the subject
Yes
3) BEREC Regulatory Best Practices
BEREC Common Approach (Common Position), BEREC Guidelines and BEREC Methodology on the implementation of the EU Regulatory Framework
Yes Yes Yes
4) BEREC Advice To the Commission on any matter regarding electronic communications within its competence
No No Yes
5) Comitology Input to the Commission No No Yes
6) BEREC Advice Assistance to NRAs No No No
(...) (...) (...) (...) (...)
Department of International and European Law 16
Conclusion
• BEREC as formalization of network trend
• limited delegation: weaknesses of BEREC, strength of national regulators
• new structures, old problems• accountability mechanisms• stakeholders’ position