There is no doubt in the telecoms sector, the priority for the new European Parliament will be to finalise the ‘telecoms package’. This major reform of EU telecoms legislation is still blocked by the question of freedom for internet surfers. At the heart of the issue is the former Amendment 138 suggested by MEPs, which is clearly aimed at counteracting a draft French law against illegal downloading. Until now, the Council of Ministers has rejected the amendment because it would lead to legal chaos in some member states.

The recent rejection by the French Constitutional Council of the most controversial aspect of the French law, nicknamed Hadopi, that would have allowed sanctions to be imposed against internet users guilty of repeated copyright violations, which recently put a spoke in the wheels of the European debate, has provided the EU with an opportunity to finally end the long and thorny reform.

In fact, the French elders and the European Parliament have similar arguments. The former group proposes that restrictions to a person’s liberty, such as cutting off internet access, may only be ordered by a judge and the EP proposes that any restriction of the basic rights of internet surfers (information and expression) requires a prior ruling by the judicial system. In May this year, MEPs confirmed their amendment in second reading (making it 46) by a very large majority.

The rapporteur, Catherine Trautmann (PES, France), who retained her seat during the 7 June elections, intends to make the most of this opportunity. She reacted immediately to the verdict handed down by the French, on 10 June. “I intend to use this decision to back my arguments during the negotiations with the European Council and Commission which are due to reopen very shortly,” she said in a press release.

The Council of Ministers, which rejected the amendment at the end of 2008, argued that it would disturb the legal system. The Commission, in a hurry to see its reform implemented, welcomed the “clarification” made by the French. For Information Society Commissioner Viviane Reding, the amendment merely “repeats well-established principles”.

But the verdict will have to wait for the re-opening of negotiations (in conciliation, third reading). To recall, this package, negotiated with much difficulty, establishes a European Bureau of Regulators, strengthens the European Commission’s regulatory role and provides better consumer protection. But one thing is sure: the whole package is not to be re-visited. At their meeting in Luxembourg, on 11 June, EU telecoms ministers expressed their wish that the negotiations focus only on Amendment 138. Their target is to have the “whole package” adopted as soon as possible, according to the Czech EU Presidency, although some remain sceptical.

Once operational, the EP will also wish to advance on two areas related to the management of the radio frequency spectrum. First, its liberalisation, aware that the EP insisted – in the telecoms package as well – on the public nature of the spectrum. And, secondly, the use by other services, notably mobile telephony, of the ‘spectrum dividend’, ie the frequencies that will be freed up when digital television replaces analogue television in 2012.

The debate promises to be difficult, notably for public television services, which argue that they need the frequencies to develop new services, such as high definition television, which require a wide range of frequencies. The Commission, however, is keen to launch the debate and incite member states to coordinate the use of frequencies. Starting in July, it will submit a draft recommendation for public consultation promising “economic potential” of between €150 billion and €200 billion.

Whereas the subject, until now, has been technically debated between the Commission and the Council, the EP, in future discussions, will carry more weight given that the telecoms package has raised the subject to political level. So agreement still needs to be reached on the legislation, which is scheduled to enter into force at the beginning of 2010.

The debate is blocked by the question of freedom for internet surfers