Telecoms Package Plenary Amendments


 * Voted amendments on Wednesday September 24th plenary session

In the following amendments, amended text with regard to Commission's initial proposal is highlighted in bold italics. In the case of amending acts, passages in an existing provision that the Commission has left unchanged, but that Parliament wishes to amend, are highlighted in bold. Any deletions that Parliament wishes to make in passages of this kind are stroke out.


 * '''See also the suggested voting list with brief explanations on why to support or reject amendments.
 * '''See also these amendments sorted by topic

COD/2007/0247 - Trautmann report (networks and services)
Electronic communications: common regulatory framework for networks and services, access, interconnection and authorisation ("Telecoms Package" [amend. Directives 2002/19/EC to 2002/21/EC&#93;)

ITRE Committee, rapporteur Catherine TRAUTMANN (without other explicit mention, amendments are tabled by ITRE Committee).

The amendments voted by ITRE Committee have now been published on European Parliament website. All tabled amendments will be published on this page at European Parliament website.

This page will be updated as new amendments are filed and our analyze deepened.

Amendment 61 --

 * Article 1 – point 8 – point e amending Directive 2002/21/EC Article 8 – paragraph 4 – point g

(g) applying the principle that end-users should be able to access and distribute any lawful content and use any lawful applications and/or services of their choice and for this purpose contributing to the promotion of lawful content in accordance with Article 33 of Directive 2002/22/EC (Universal Service Directive).


 * Voting recommendation: against or should be amended as: "(g) applying the principle that end-users should be able to access and distribute any content and use any applications and/or services of their choice".

Amendment 64 --

 * Article 1 – point 9 amending Directive 2002/21/EC Article 9

Article 9 Management of radio frequencies for electronic communications services 1. Taking due account of the fact that radio frequencies are a public good that has an important social, cultural and economic value, Member States shall ensure the effective management of radio frequencies for electronic communication services in their territory in accordance with Articles 8 and 8a. They shall ensure that the allocation and assignment of such radio frequencies by national regulatory authorities are based on objective, transparent, non discriminatory and proportionate criteria. In so doing, they shall act in accordance with international agreements and may take public policy considerations into account. 2. Member States shall promote the harmonisation of use of radio frequencies across the Community, consistent with the need to ensure effective and efficient use thereof and in pursuit of benefits for the consumer such as economies of scale and interoperability of 'services. In so doing, they shall act in accordance with Articles 8a' and 9c of this Directive, and with Decision No 676/2002/EC (Radio Spectrum Decision). 3. Unless otherwise provided in the second subparagraph or in the measures adopted pursuant to Article 9c, Member States shall, ensure that all types of technologies used for electronic communications services may be used in the radio frequency bands available for electronic communications services in accordance with the ITU Radio Regulations. Member States may, however, provide for proportionate and non-discriminatory restrictions to the types of technologies used for electronic communication services where this is necessary to: (a) avoid the possibility of harmful interference, (b) protect public health against electromagnetic fields, (ba) ensure technical quality of service, (c) ensure maximisation of radio frequency sharing, (ca) safeguard the efficient use of radio frequencies, (d) fulfil a general interest objective in accordance with paragraph 4 below. 4. Unless otherwise provided in the second subparagraph, Member States shall ensure that all types of electronic communications services may be provided in the radio frequency bands available for electronic communications services in accordance with their national frequency allocation plans and with the ITU Radio Regulations. The Member States may, however, provide for proportionate and non discriminatory restrictions to the types of electronic communications services to be provided. Measures that require an electronic communications service to be provided in a specific band available for electronic communications services shall be justified in order to ensure the fulfilment of a general interest objective as defined in national legislation in conformity with Community law, such as safety of life, the promotion of social, regional or territorial cohesion, the avoidance of inefficient use of radio frequencies, or the promotion of cultural and media policy objectives such as cultural and linguistic diversity and media pluralism. A measure which prohibits the provision of any other electronic communications service in a specific band may only be provided for where justified by the need to protect safety of life services. 5. Member States shall regularly review the necessity of the restrictions and measures referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 and shall make the results of these reviews public. 6. Paragraphs 3 and 4 shall apply to the allocation and assignment of radio frequencies after [date of transposition].
 * Voting recommendation: split vote to reject cultural and media policy objectives such as in point 4, therefore come back to initial Commission's proposition: promotion of cultural and linguistic diversity.

Amendment 98 --

 * Article 2 – point 6 a (new) amending Directive 2002/19/EC Article 9 – paragraph 1

(6a) In Article 9, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following: "1. National regulatory authorities may, in accordance with the provisions of Article 8, impose obligations for transparency in relation to interconnection and/or access, requiring operators to make public specified information, such as accounting information, technical specifications, network characteristics, restrictions on access to services and applications, traffic management policies, terms and conditions for supply and use, and prices."


 * Voting recommendation: reject or split vote to 'delete "restrictions on access to services and applications"''.

Amendment 100 --

 * Article 2 – point 8 amending Directive 2002/19/EC Article 12

1. A national regulatory authority may, in accordance with the provisions of Article 8, impose obligations on operators to meet reasonable requests for access to, and use of, specific network elements and associated facilities, inter alia in situations where the national regulatory authority considers that denial of access or unreasonable terms and conditions having a similar effect would hinder the emergence of a sustainable competitive market at the retail level, or would not be in the end-user's interest. Operators shall be required inter alia: (a) to give third parties access to specified network elements and/or facilities, including unbundled access to the local loop; (b) to negotiate in good faith with undertakings requesting access; (c) not to withdraw access to facilities already granted; (d) to provide specified services on a wholesale basis for resale by third parties; (e) to grant open access to technical interfaces, protocols or other key technologies that are indispensable for the interoperability of services or virtual network services; (f) to provide co-location or other forms of facility sharing, including the sharing of ducts, buildings or entry to buildings, antennae towers and other supporting constructions, masts, manholes, cabinets and other network elements which are not active; (fa) to provide third parties with a reference offer for the granting of access to ducts; (g) to provide specified services needed to ensure interoperability of end-to-end services to users, including facilities for intelligent network services or roaming on mobile networks; (h) to provide access to operational support systems or similar software systems necessary to ensure fair competition in the provision of services; (i) to interconnect networks or network facilities; (j) to provide access to associated services such as identity, location and presence capability. National regulatory authorities may attach to those obligations conditions covering fairness, reasonableness and timeliness. 2. When national regulatory authorities are considering whether to impose the obligations referred in paragraph 1, and in particular when assessing whether such obligations would be proportionate to the objectives set out in Article 8 of Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive), they shall take account in particular of the following factors: (a) the technical and economic viability of using or installing competing facilities, in the light of the rate of market development, taking into account the nature and type of interconnection and access involved, including the viability of other upstream access products such as access to ducts; (b) the feasibility of providing the access proposed, in relation to the capacity available; (c) the initial investment by the facility owner, bearing in mind any public investment made and the risks involved in making the investment, including an appropriate risk-sharing among those undertakings enjoying access to these new facilities; (d) the need to safeguard competition in the long term, in particular infrastructure-based competition (e) where appropriate, any relevant intellectual property rights; (f) the provision of pan-European services. 3. When imposing obligations on an operator to provide access in accordance with the provisions of this Article, national regulatory authorities may lay down technical or operational conditions to be met by the provider and/or beneficiaries of such access where necessary to ensure normal operation of the network. Obligations to follow specific technical standards or specifications shall be in compliance with the standards and specifications laid down in accordance with Article 17 of Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive).


 * Voting recommendation: split vote to reject paragraph 2, point e.

Amendment 120 ++

 * Annex I – point 3 – point g amending Directive 2002/20/EC Annex I – part A – point 19

19. Compliance with national measures implementing Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council.


 * Justification

It would be more efficient and welcome if discussion on the protection of copyright and related issues on electronic communications networks would be dealt with within the Content Online ''consultation. This initiative intends to create the right environment'' for a dialogue where all stakeholders from across the electronic value chain can work together to find solutions that are based on self-regulation and will be supported by all stakeholders.

In France, the new copyright legislation resulting in the "Olivennes Agreements" specifically provides that judges can impose filtering mandates not only on ISPs, but on anyone in a position to help prevent the occurrence of a copyright infringement. Filtering technologies are likely to be imposed at different levels of the distribution chain and cover terminal equipment including software.

Unless Svensson's Swedish amendments are carried, there is virtually nothing in the telecoms package stopping a competent authority (a judge, a court or a national regulator) to force an ISP to block eBay.

Users must have statutory rights to access applications (e.g. eBay). A third party (e.g. Dior) must not be given a mandate from the state to interfere with a user's actions or network activity.

If any person in a position to contribute to putting an end to IPR infringements, as is currently prepared to be French law, the ISPs will be forced to take action on behalf of a rights holder.

Recent cases in France and elsewhere clearly show the trend:

A French Court finds eBay liable for the infringement of selective distribution networks and unlawful acts committed against perfumers on its sites (Parfums Christian Dior, Kenzo Parfum, Parfums Givenchy, Guerlain v. eBay) http://www.concurrences.com/abstract_bulletin_web.php3?id_article=20125

Accordingly, a French plaintiff seeking to make out a case based on trademark infringement against a defendant who is engaged in hosting content posted by others (such as eBay's posting of the would-be sellers' ads) has, to say the least, its work cut out in meeting an onerous burden of proof. In light of this, such a plaintiff has a very strong incentive to focus not on the content posted by third parties, but rather on the running of the platform itself. This shift in focus away from the third-party content and toward the way in which the defendant runs the platform per se in turn suggests legal grounds based not on trademark law but rather on the tort of negligence (Section 1382 of the French Civil Code). This is precisely what LVMH and Christian Dior realized and they argued their case against eBay in France based on this insight. http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=64686

Claims similar to that of Hermes have been filed against eBay in other jurisdictions. Meanwhile, in France, Christian Dior Couture and Louis Vuitton brought legal action, urging eBay to police its auctions more effectively, after losing US$40 million to infringers. In the European Union, L'Ore{aac}al brought suits in Germany, Belgium, Spain, France, and the UK, demanding eBay be held accountable for contributory infringement based on its commissions profit from counterfeit cosmetics sales.

What is the difference between the US and French cases? In general terms, both French and US courts have rejected eBay's contention that it is simply a medium for advertisements placed by members and has no responsibility over what is being sold. However, where the decisions differ is that the US court concludes that eBay is already taking appropriate measures to suppress the sale of counterfeit goods, while the French court views that eBay is not doing enough. http://www.bangkokpost.com/120808_Business/12Aug2008_biz37.php

eBay was found liable for online sales of fakes brands despite eBay's argument that liability rested solely with online sellers. http://law.lexisnexis.com/practiceareas/Fashion-Design-Protection-Blog/Copyright-Infringement/To-Moniteur-or-Not-to-Monitor-That-is-eBay%27s-Question-


 * Voting recommendation: for.

Amendment 130 ++

 * Article 1 – point 8 – point e amending Directive 2002/21/EC Article 8 – paragraph 4 – point g tabled by IND/DEM

(g) applying the principle that end-users should be able to access and distribute any lawful content and use any lawful applications and/or services of their choice.


 * Voting recommendation: for.

Amendment 131 ++

 * Article 1 – point 8 – point e amending Directive 2002/21/EC Article 8 – paragraph 4 – point g a (new) tabled by IND/DEM

(ga) applying the principle that restriction to end-users' rights to access and distribute any content, applications and/or services of their choice can only be dictated by force majeure, by the requirements of preserving network integrity and security, or subject to national provisions of criminal law imposed for reasons of public policy, public security or public morality.


 * Voting recommendation: for.

Amendment 132 --

 * Article 1 – point 8 – point e a (new) amending Directive 2002/21/EC Article 8 – paragraph 4 – point g a (new) tabled by Jacques Toubon, Ruth Hieronymi and others

(ea) In paragraph 4, point (ga) is added: "(ga) promoting dialogue between undertakings providing electronic communications services and networks and creative content industries in order to foster joint-industry solutions, including codes of conduct."


 * Voting recommendation: against.

Amendment 133 ++

 * Article 1 – point 24 a (new) amending Directive 2002/21/EC Article 25 a (new) tabled by GUE/NGL

(24a) The following Article is inserted: Article 25a Internet filtering Member States shall ensure that no technology may be mandated by competent authorities which would facilitate surveillance of internet users, such as technologies that mirror or monitor the user´s actions and/or interfere with operations of the user's network activity for the benefit of a third party (known as "filtering").".


 * Voting recommendation: for.

Amendment 137 -- withdrawn

 * Article 1 – point 8 amending Directive 2002/21/EC Article 8 – paragraph 4 – point g a (new) tabled by PPE-DE

(ga) promoting the dialogue between undertakings providing electronic communications services and networks and creative content industries in order to foster joint-industries solutions, including codes of conduct.


 * Voting recommendation: against.

Amendment 138 +++

 * Article 1 – point 8 – point e a (new) amending Directive 2002/21/EC Article 8 – paragraph 4 – point g a (new) tabled by Guy Bono, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, Zuzana Roithová and others

(ea) In paragraph 4, point (ga) is added: "(ga) applying the principle that no restriction may be imposed on the rights and freedoms of end-users, notably in accordance with Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union on freedom of expression and information, without a prior ruling by the judicial authorities, except where dictated by force majeure or by the requirements of preserving network integrity and security, and subject to national provisions of criminal law imposed for reasons of public policy, public security or public morality."


 * Voting recommendation: for.

Was adopted after an oral amendment with following wording:

“applying the principle that no restriction may be imposed on the fundamental rights and freedoms of end-users, without a prior ruling by the judicial authorities, notably in accordance with Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union on freedom of expression and information, save when public security is threatened in which case the ruling may be subsequent.”

Amendment 139 ++

 * Article 1 – point 8 – point e a (new) amending Directive 2002/21/EC Article 8 – paragraph 4 – point g tabled by Verts/ALE

(g) applying the principle that end-users should be able to access and distribute any lawful content and use any lawful applications and/or services of their choice, subject to national provisions of criminal law imposed for reasons of public policy, public security or morality.


 * Voting recommendation: for.

Amendment 141 ++

 * Article 2 – point 8 – point b a (new) amending Directive 2002/19/EC Article 12 – paragraph 2 tabled by Verts/ALE

(ba) Paragraph 2 shall be replaced by the following: "2. When national regulatory authorities are considering whether to impose the obligations referred in paragraph 1, and in particular when assessing whether such obligations would be proportionate to the objectives set out in Article 8 of Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive), they shall take account in particular of the following factors: (a) the technical and economic viability of using or installing competing facilities, in the light of the rate of market development, taking into account the nature and type of interconnection and access involved, including the viability of other upstream access products such as access to ducts; (b) the feasibility of providing the access proposed, in relation to the capacity available; (c) the initial investment by the facility owner, bearing in mind any public investment made and the risks involved in making the investment, including appropriate risk-sharing among those undertakings enjoying access to these new facilities; (d) the need to safeguard competition in the long term, in particular infrastructure-based competition; (e) the provision of pan-European services".


 * Voting recommendation: for.

Amendment 142 ++

 * Article 1 – point 8 – point e amending Directive 2002/21/EC Article 8 – paragraph 4 – point g tabled by GUE/NGL

(g) applying the principle that end-users should be able to access and distribute any lawful content and use any lawful applications and/or services of their choice.


 * Voting recommendation: for.

Amendment 143 ++

 * Article 1 – point 8 – point e a (new) amending Directive 2002/21/EC Article 8 – paragraph 4 – point g tabled by GUE/NGL

(ea) In paragraph 4, point (ga) is added: "(ga) applying the principle that restriction of end users' rights to access and distribute any content, applications and services of their choice can only be dictated by force majeure, by the requirements of preserving network integrity and security, or subject to national provisions of criminal law imposed for reasons of public policy or public security."


 * Voting recommendation: for.

COD/2007/0248 - Harbour report (network user's rights, privacy, consumer protection, ...)
Electronic communications: universal service, users' rights relating to networks and services, processing of personal data, protection of privacy, consumer protection cooperation ("Telecoms Package" [amend. Directives 2002/22/EC, 2002/58/EC and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004&#93;)

IMCO Committee, rapporteur Malcolm HARBOUR (without other explicit mention, amendments are tabled by IMCO Committee).

The amendments voted by IMCO Committee have now been published on European Parliament website. All tabled amendments will be published on this page at European Parliament website.

This page will be updated as new amendments are filed and our analyze deepened.

Amendment 9 -- replaced by Amendment 191

 * Recital 12 c (new)

(12c) In order to address public interest issues with respect to the use of communications services, and to encourage protection of the rights and freedoms of others, the relevant national authorities should be able to produce and have disseminated, with the aid of providers, information related to the use of communications services. This information should include warnings regarding copyright infringement, other unlawful uses and dissemination of harmful content, and advice and means of protection against risks to personal security, which may for example arise from disclosure of personal 'information in certain circumstances, privacy and personal data. The' information could be coordinated by way of the cooperation procedure 'established in Article 33(2a) of Directive 2002/22/EC. Such public' interest information should be produced either as a preventative measure or in response to particular problems, should be updated whenever necessary and should be presented in easily comprehensible printed and electronic formats, as determined by each Member State, 'and on national public authority websites. National regulatory' authorities should be able to oblige providers to disseminate this information to their customers in a manner deemed appropriate by the 'national regulatory authorities. Significant additional costs' incurred by service providers for dissemination of such information, for example if the provider is obliged to send the information by post and thereby incurs additional postage costs, should be agreed between the providers and the relevant authorities and met by those 'authorities. The information should also be included in contracts.'


 * Voting recommendation: against, also EDPS suggests to delete Amendment 9 altogether, or alternatively redrafting it to account for the following: 1) in the first sentence, add the qualifying phrase "public interest" to the word "information"; 2) in the second sentence the word "warnings" should be clarified to ensure that they are "public interest warnings"; 3) remove the reference to "a response to particular problems," which also evoke individual, rather than more generalized warnings.

Amendment 11 --

 * Recital 14

(14) End-users should decide what lawful content they want to be able to send and receive, and which services, applications, hardware and software they want to use for such purposes, without prejudice to the need to preserve the integrity and security of networks and services. A competitive market with transparent offerings as provided for in Directive 2002/22/EC should ensure that end-users are able to access and distribute any lawful content and to use any lawful applications and/or services of their choice, as stated in Article 8 of Directive 2002/21/EC. Given the increasing importance of electronic communications for consumers and businesses, users should in any case be fully informed of any restrictions and/or limitations imposed on the use of electronic communications services by the service and/or network provider. Such information should, at the option of the provider, specify either the type of content, application or service 'concerned, or individual applications or services, or both. Depending' on the technology used and the type of restriction and/or limitation, such restrictions and/or limitations may require user consent under Directive 2002/58/EC (Privacy Directive).


 * Voting recommendation: against or amend original text from Commission removing all mentions of "lawfulness".

Amendment 12 --

 * Recital 14 a (new)

(14a) A competitive market should also ensure that users are able to have the quality of service they require, but in particular cases it may be necessary to ensure that public communications networks attain minimum quality levels so as to prevent degradation of service, usage 'restrictions and/or limitations and the slowing of traffic. Where' there is a lack of effective competition, national regulatory authorities should use the remedies available to them under the Directives establishing the regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services to ensure that users' access to particular types of content or applications is not unreasonably 'restricted. It should also be possible for national regulatory' authorities to issue guidelines setting minimum quality of service requirements under Directive 2002/22/EC and to take other measures where such other remedies have, in their judgement, not been effective with regard to the interests of users and all other 'relevant circumstances. Such guidelines or measures could include the' provision of a basic tier of unrestricted services.


 * Voting recommendation: against or amend the sentence "to ensure that users' access to particular types of content or applications is not unreasonably restricted" by: "to ensure that users' access to particular types of content or applications is guaranteed".

Amendment 13 -- replaced by Amendment 190

 * Recital 14 c (new)

(14c) Management of networks in order to, for example, address congestion and capacity constraints and to enable new services should not per se be considered an example of a restriction requiring intervention, and due account should be taken of the right of network and service operators to diversify their offerings in a competitive market, including through the imposition of reasonable usage restrictions, price differentiation and other legitimate competitive 'practices. Temporary non-compliance with any minimum quality of' service requirements due to unforeseeable circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the service and/or network provider (force majeure) should not be subject to sanctions.


 * Voting recommendation: against. Violates principle of net neutrality. At present EU telcom regulation provides for flexibilities for usual network management.

Amendment 14 --

 * Recital 14 d (new)

(14d) Since inconsistent remedies will significantly impair the achievement of the internal market, the Commission should assess any guidelines or other measures adopted by national regulatory authorities for possible regulatory intervention across the Community and, if necessary, adopt technical implementing measures in order to achieve consistent application throughout the Community.


 * Voting recommendation: against.

Amendment 27

 * (Amendment 2 of the LIBE opinion) Recital 26 b (new)

(26b) When defining the implementing measures on the security of processing, in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny, the Commission should consult all relevant European authorities and organisations (ENISA, the European Data Protection Supervisor and the Article 29 Working Party) as well as all other relevant stakeholders, particularly in order to be informed of the best available technical and economic methods for improving the implementation of Directive 2002/58/EC.


 * Voting recommendation: abstain.

Amendment 28

 * (Amendment 3 of the LIBE opinion) Recital 26 c (new)

(26c) The provisions of Directive 2002/58/EC particularise and complement Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of 'such data [OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31. Directive as amended by' Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003.] and provide for the legitimate interests of subscribers who are natural or legal persons.


 * Voting recommendation: abstain.

Amendment 30 --

 * (Amendment 5 of the LIBE opinion) Recital 28 a (new)

(28a) For the purpose of Directive 2002/58/EC, Internet Protocol addresses should be considered as personal data only if they can be directly linked to an individual alone or in conjunction with other 'data. By ... [Two years from the date of entry into force of this' Directive.], the Commission should propose specific legislation on the legal handling of Internet Protocol addresses as personal data within the framework of data protection following consultation of the Article 29 Working Party and the European Data Protection Supervisor.


 * Voting recommendation: against, also EDPS suggests to remove the first sentence and to amend as "No later than XX 1, the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament, the Council, and the European Economic Social Committee a study and a report with recommendations on standard uses of IP addresses and the application of the ePrivacy and Data Protection (95/46/EC) Directives to their collection and further processing, following the consultation of the EDPS, the Article 29 Working Party, and other stakeholders to include industry representatives.".

Amendment 33 -

 * (Amendment 8 of the LIBE opinion) Recital 29

(29) A breach of security resulting in the loss or compromising personal data of an individual subscriber may, if not addressed in an adequate and timely manner, result in substantial economic loss and social harm, including identity fraud. Therefore, the national regulatory authority or other competent national authority should be notified without delay. The notification should include information about measures taken by the provider to address the breach, as well as recommendations for the users affected. The competent authority 'should consider and determine the seriousness of the breach. If the' breach is deemed to be serious the competent authority should require the provider of publicly available electronic communications service and the provider of information society services to give an appropriate notification without undue delay to the persons affected by the breach.


 * Voting recommendation: against.

Amendment 34 ---

 * (Amendment 9 of the LIBE opinion) Recital 30 a (new)

(30a) Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58/EC should be construed as meaning that disclosure of personal data in the context of Article 8 of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights [OJ L 157, 30.4.2004, p. 45.] is without prejudice to Directive 2002/58/EC or Directive 95/46/EC where it takes place following a justified, i.e. sufficiently well-founded, and proportionate request in accordance with procedures laid down by the Member States to guarantee that these safeguards are respected.


 * Voting recommendation: against.

Amendment 35 --

 * (Amendment 10 of the LIBE opinion) Recital 30 b (new)

(30b) When implementing measures transposing Directive 2002/58/EC, the authorities and courts of the Member States should not only interpret their national law in a manner consistent with that Directive, but should also ensure that they do not rely on an interpretation of that Directive which would be in conflict with other fundamental rights or general principles of Community law, such as the principle of proportionality.


 * Voting recommendation: against.

Amendment 62 --

 * Article 1 – point 12 amending Directive 2002/22/EC Article 20 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point (b)

(b) services provided, including in particular: - where access to emergency services and caller location information is to be provided under Article 26, the level of reliability of such access, where relevant, and whether access is provided in the whole of the national territory, - information on any restrictions imposed by the provider regarding a subscriber's ability to access, use or distribute lawful content or run lawful applications and services, - the service quality levels, with reference to any parameters specified under Article 22(2) as appropriate, - types of maintenance and customer support services offered, as well as how to contact customer support, - the time for the initial connection, and - any restrictions on the use of terminal equipment imposed by the provider;


 * Voting recommendation: against or split vote removing the two mentions of "lawful".

Amendment 67 --

 * Article 1 – point 12 amending Directive 2002/22/EC Article 20 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

The contract shall also include any information provided by the relevant public authorities on the use of electronic communications networks and services to engage in unlawful activities or to disseminate harmful content, and on the means of protection against risks to personal security, privacy and personal data referred to in Article 21(4a) and relevant to the service provided.


 * Voting recommendation: against.

Amendment 70 ++

 * Article 1 – point 12 amending Directive 2002/22/EC Article 20 – paragraph 5

5. Member States shall ensure that where contracts are concluded between subscribers and undertakings providing electronic communications services and/or networks, subscribers are clearly informed in advance of the conclusion of a contract and regularly thereafter of any limitations imposed by the provider on their ability to access or distribute lawful content or run any lawful applications and services of their choice.


 * Voting recommendation: for

Amendment 71 ++

 * Article 1 – point 12 amending Directive 2002/22/EC Article 20 – paragraph 6

6. Member States shall ensure that where contracts are concluded between subscribers and undertakings providing electronic communications services and/or networks, subscribers are clearly informed in advance of the conclusion of the contract and regularly thereafter of their obligations to respect copyright and related rights. Without prejudice to Directive 2000/31/EC on electronic commerce, this includes the obligation to inform subscribers of the most common acts of infringements and their legal consequences.


 * Voting recommendation: for

Amendment 75 --

 * Article 1 – point 12 amending Directive 2002/22/EC Article 21 – paragraph 4

4. Member States shall ensure that national regulatory authorities are able to oblige undertakings providing connection to a public electronic communications network and/or electronic communications services to inter alia: (a) provide applicable tariff information to subscribers regarding any number or service subject to particular pricing conditions; with respect to individual categories of services national regulatory authorities may require such information to be provided prior to connecting the call; (b) regularly remind subscribers of any lack of reliable access to emergency services or caller location information in the service they have subscribed to; (c) inform subscribers of any change to any restrictions imposed by the undertaking on their ability to access, use or distribute lawful content or run lawful applications and services of their choice; (d) inform subscribers of their right to include their personal data in a directory, and of the types of data concerned; and (e) regularly inform disabled subscribers of details of current products and services aimed at them. If deemed appropriate, national regulatory authorities may promote self-or co-regulatory measures prior to imposing any obligation.


 * Voting recommendation: against or split vote removing the two mentions of "lawful".

Amendment 76 --

 * Article 1 – point 12 amending Directive 2002/22/EC Article 21 – paragraph 4 a (new)

'4a. Member States shall ensure that national regulatory authorities' oblige the undertakings referred to in paragraph 4 to distribute public interest information to existing and new subscribers where 'appropriate. Such information shall be produced by the relevant' public authorities in a standardised format and shall inter alia cover the following topics: (a) the most common uses of electronic communications services to engage in unlawful activities or to disseminate harmful content, particularly where it may prejudice respect for the rights and freedoms of others, including infringements of copyright and related right, and their consequences; and (b) means of protection against risks to personal security, privacy and personal data in using electronic communications services. Significant additional costs incurred by an undertaking in complying with these obligations shall be reimbursed by the relevant public authorities.


 * Voting recommendation: against or split vote removing item a), also EDPS suggests to clarify in a recital, which could read as follows: "Cooperation procedures created pursuant to this Directive should not allow for systematic and proactive surveillance of Internet usage.".

Amendment 81 -- replaced by Amendment 193

 * Article 1 – point 13 – point b amending Directive 2002/22/EC Article 22 – paragraph 3

3. A national regulatory authority may issue guidelines setting minimum quality of service requirements, and, if appropriate, take other measures, in order to prevent degradation of service and slowing of traffic over networks, and to ensure that the ability of users to access or distribute lawful content or to run lawful applications and services of their choice is not unreasonably 'restricted. Those guidelines or measures shall take due account of' any standards issued under Article 17 of Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive). The Commission may, having examined such guidelines or measures and consulted [xxx], adopt technical implementing measures in that regard if it considers that the guidelines or measures may create a barrier 'to the internal market. Those' measures, designed to amend non-essential elements of this Directive by supplementing it, shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 37(2).


 * Voting recommendation: against or amend the sentence "to ensure that the ability of users to access or distribute lawful content or to run lawful applications and services of their choice is not unreasonably restricted" by: "to ensure that the ability of users to access or distribute content or to run applications and services of their choice is guaranteed", also EDPS advises against this amendment.

Amendment 101 --

 * Article 1 – point 16 amending Directive 2002/22/EC Article 28 – paragraph 2 a (new)

'2a. Member States shall ensure that national regulatory authorities' are able to require undertakings providing public communications networks to provide information regarding the management of their networks in connection with any limitations or restrictions on end-user access to or use of services, content or applications. Member States shall ensure that national regulatory authorities have all the powers necessary to investigate cases in which undertakings have imposed limitations on end-user access to services, content or applications.


 * Voting recommendation: against.

Amendment 112 --

 * Article 1 – point 20 – point a a (new) amending Directive 2002/22/EC Article 33 – paragraph 2 a (new)

(aa) the following paragraph shall be added: '2a. Without prejudice to national rules in conformity with Community' law promoting cultural and media policy objectives, such as cultural and linguistic diversity and media pluralism, national regulatory authorities and other relevant authorities shall as far as appropriate promote cooperation between undertakings providing electronic communications networks and/or services and the sectors interested in the promotion of lawful content in electronic 'communication networks and services. That co-operation may also' include coordination of the public interest information to be made available under Article 21(4a) and Article 20(2).


 * Voting recommendation: against, also EDPS suggests to clarify in a recital, which could read as follows: "Cooperation procedures created pursuant to this Directive should not allow for systematic and proactive surveillance of Internet usage.".

Amendment 113 -
3. Member States shall submit a yearly report to the Commission and the Authority on the measures taken and the progress towards improving interoperability and use of, and access to, electronic communications services and terminal equipment by disabled end-users.
 * Article 1 – point 20 – point b Directive 2002/22/EC Article 33 – paragraph 3 deletion


 * Voting recommendation: against: weakens interoperability clause which is a serious obstacle for disabled users and requires annual review when addressed properly. Recommendation for compromise amendment: "BERT and the Commission shall submit a joint annual progress report to the Council and Parliament on improving interoperability of, and access to, electronic communications services by disabled users."

Amendment 117 --

 * Article 1 – point 21 amending Directive 2002/22/EC Article 34 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 a (new)

Member States shall encourage trustworthy out-of-court procedures, with specific regard to the interaction of audiovisual and electronic communications.


 * Voting recommendation: against.

Amendment 122 --

 * (Amendment 19 of the LIBE opinion) Article 2 – point 3 – point a a (new) amending Directive 2002/58/EC Article 4 – paragraphs 1 a and 1 b (new)

(aa) the following paragraphs shall be inserted: '1a. Without prejudice to the provisions of Directive 95/46/EC and' Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks [OJ L 105, 13.4.2006, p. 54.], these measures shall include: - appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure that personal data can be accessed only by authorised personnel for legally authorised purposes and to protect personal data stored or transmitted against accidental or unlawful destruction, accidental loss or alteration and unauthorised or unlawful storage, processing, access or disclosure; - appropriate technical and organisational measures to protect the network and services against accidental, unlawful or unauthorised usage or interference with or hindering of their functioning or availability; - a security policy with respect to the processing of personal data; - a process for identifying and assessing reasonably foreseeable vulnerabilities in the systems maintained by the provider of electronic communications services, which shall include regular monitoring for security breaches; and - a process for taking preventive, corrective and mitigating action against any vulnerabilities discovered in the process described under the fourth indent and a process for taking preventive, corrective and mitigating action against security incidents that can lead to a security breach. '1b. National regulatory authorities shall be able to audit the' measures taken by providers of publicly available electronic communication services and information society services and to issue recommendations about best practices and performance indicators concerning the level of security which these measures should achieve.


 * Voting recommendation: against or change paragraph 3 ("appropriate technical and organisational measures to protect the network and services ... or availability") by appropriate technical and organisational measures to preserve the confidentiality, the integrity and the availability of the network and services

Amendment 123 -

 * (Amendment 20 of the LIBE opinion) Article 2 – point 3 – point b amending Directive 2002/58/EC Article 4 – paragraph 3

3. In case of a breach of security leading to the accidental or unlawful destruction, loss, alteration, unauthorised disclosure of or access to personal data transmitted, stored or otherwise processed in connection with the provision of publicly available communications services in the Community which is likely to cause harm to users, the provider of publicly available electronic communications services, as well as any undertaking operating on the Internet and providing services to consumers, which is the data controller and the provider of information society services shall, without undue delay, notify the national regulatory authority or the competent authority according to the individual law of the Member State of such a breach. The notification to the competent authority shall at least describe the nature of the breach and recommend measures to mitigate its possible negative effects. The notification to the competent authority shall, in addition, describe the consequences of and the measures taken by the provider to address the breach. The provider of publicly available electronic communications services, as well as any undertaking operating on the Internet and providing services to consumers, which is the data controller and the provider of information society services, shall notify their users beforehand if they deem it necessary to avoid imminent and direct danger to the rights and interests of consumers.


 * Voting recommendation: against.

Amendment 124 -

 * (Amendment 21 of the LIBE opinion) Article 2 – point 3 – point b amending Directive 2002/58/EC Article 4 – paragraph 3 a (new)

'3a. The competent authority shall consider and determine the' 'seriousness of the breach. If the breach is deemed to be serious, the' competent authority shall require the provider of publicly available electronic communications services and the provider of information society services to give an appropriate notification without undue 'delay to the persons affected by the breach. The notification shall' contain the elements described in paragraph 3. The notification of a serious breach may be postponed in cases where the notification may hinder the progress of a criminal investigation related to the serious breach. Providers shall annually notify affected users of all breaches of security that have led to the accidental or unlawful destruction, loss or alteration or the unauthorised disclosure of or access to personal data transmitted, stored or otherwise processed in connection with the provision of publicly available communications services in the Community. National regulatory authorities shall also monitor whether companies have complied with their notification obligations under this Article and impose appropriate sanctions, including publication, as appropriate, in the event of a failure to do so.


 * Voting recommendation: against.

Amendment 125 -

 * (Amendment 22 of the LIBE opinion) Article 2 – point 3 – point b amending Directive 2002/58/EC Article 4 – paragraph 3 b (new)

'3b. The seriousness of a breach requiring notification to subscribers' shall be determined according to the circumstances of the breach, such as the risk to the personal data affected by the breach, the type of data affected by the breach, the number of subscribers involved, and the immediate or potential impact of the breach on the provision of services.


 * Voting recommendation: against.

Amendment 126 -

 * (Amendment 23 of the LIBE opinion) Article 2 – point 3 – point b amending Directive 2002/58/EC Article 4 – paragraph 3 c (new)

'3c. The breach shall not be determined to be serious and the provider' of publicly available electronic communications services and the provider of information society services shall be exempt from the requirement to provide notification to the persons affected, if they can demonstrate that there is no reasonable risk to the personal data affected by the breach due to the use of appropriate technological protection measures. Technological protection measures in the event of accidental or unlawful destruction, loss or alteration or unauthorized disclosure of or access to personal data which are transmitted or stored shall either render the data unintelligible to any third party, or in the event of accidental or unlawful loss shall make the personal data available to the provider of publicly available electronic communication services and the provider of information society services.


 * Voting recommendation: against.

Amendment 127

 * (Amendment 24 of the LIBE opinion) Article 2 – point 3 – point b amending Directive 2002/58/EC Article 4 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1

4. In order to ensure consistency in implementation of the measures referred to in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 3a, 3b and 3c, the Commission shall, following consultation with the European Data Protection Supervisor, relevant stakeholders and ENISA, recommend technical implementing measures concerning inter alia the measures described in paragraph 1a and the circumstances, format and procedures applicable to information and notification requirements referred to in paragraphs 3a and 3b. The Commission shall involve all relevant stakeholders, particularly in order to be informed of the best available technical and economic methods for improving the implementation of this Directive.


 * Voting recommendation: abstain.

Amendment 130 --

 * (Amendment 28 of the LIBE opinion) Article 2 – point 4 b (new) amending Directive 2002/58/EC Article 6 – paragraph 6a (new)

(4b) in Article 6, the following paragraph shall be added: '6a. Traffic data may be processed by any natural or legal person for' the purpose of implementing technical measures to ensure the security of a public electronic communication service, a public or private electronic communications network, an information society service or 'related terminal and electronic communication equipment. Such' processing must be restricted to that which is strictly necessary for the purposes of such security activity.


 * Voting recommendation: against, also EDPS suggests to vote against or to amend as: "Without prejudice to compliance with the provisions other than Article 7 of Directive 95/46/EC and Article 5 of this Directive, traffic data may be processed by providers of security services...", to add a definition of the term "security" like "the ability of a network or an information system to resist, at a given level of confidence, accidental events or unlawful or malicious actions that compromise the availability, authenticity, integrity and confidentiality of stored or transmitted data and the related services offered by or accessible via these networks and systems" and to add a recital to illustrate types of covered types of precessings, as "The processing of traffic data for security purposes will enable the processing of such data by providers of security services acting as data controllers for the purposes of preventing unauthorized access and malicious code distribution, stopping the denial of service attacks, and damages to computer and electronic communications systems. ENISA should publish regular studies with the purpose of illustrating the types of processing allowed under Article X of the ePrivacy Directive".].

Amendment 134 --

 * (Amendment 32 of the LIBE opinion) Article 2 – point 5 a (new) amending Directive 2002/58/EC Article 14 – paragraph 1

(5a) Article 14(1) shall be replaced by the following: 1. In implementing the provisions of this Directive, Member States shall ensure, subject to paragraphs 2 and 3, that no mandatory requirements for specific technical features, including, without limitation, for the purpose of detecting, intercepting or preventing infringements of intellectual property rights by users, are imposed on terminal or other electronic communication equipment which could impede the placing of equipment on the market and the free circulation of such equipment in and between Member States.


 * Voting recommendation: against. Note that EDPS also advises against this amendment.

Amendment 135 +

 * (Amendment 33 of the LIBE opinion) Article 2 – point 5 b (new) amending Directive 2002/58/EC Article 14 – paragraph 3

(5b) Article 14(3) shall be replaced by the following: "3. Where required, measures may be adopted to ensure that terminal equipment is constructed in a way that is compatible with the right of users to protect and control the use of their personal data, in accordance with Directive 1999/5/EC and Council Decision 87/95/EEC of 22 December 1986 on standardisation in the field of information technology and communications. Such measures shall respect the principle of technology neutrality."


 * Voting recommendation: for.

Amendment 148 --

 * Annex I – Part B – point b b (new) amending Directive 2002/22/EC Annex I – Part B – point b b (new)

(bb) Protection software Member States shall ensure that national regulatory authorities are able to require operators to make available free of charge to their subscribers reliable and easy-to-use protection and/or filtering software to control access by children or vulnerable people to unlawful or dangerous content.


 * Voting recommendation: against or should be amended as: "Member States shall ensure that national regulatory authorities are able to require operators to make available free of charge to their subscribers reliable and easy to use protection and/or filtering software to limit access by children or vulnerable people to content suitable to them, on a freely and fully configurable basis and under consideration of platform neutrality".

Amendment 153 +

 * Recital 14 tabled by IND/DEM

(14) A competitive market should ensure that end-users are able to access and distribute any lawful content and to use any lawful applications and/or services of their choice, as stated in Article 8 of Directive 2002/21/EC. Given the increasing importance of electronic communications for consumers and businesses, users should in any case be fully informed of any restrictions and/or limitations imposed on the use of electronic communications services by the service and/or network provider. Such restrictions should not discriminate particular types of content or applications. Where there is a lack of effective competition, national regulatory authorities should use the remedies available to them in Directive 2002/19/EC to ensure that users’ access to particular types of content or applications is guaranteed as far as technically possible.


 * Voting recommendation: for

Amendment 154 ++

 * Recital 14 a (new) tabled by IND/DEM

(14a) A competitive market should also ensure that users are able to have the quality of service they require, but in particular cases it may be necessary to ensure that public communications networks attain minimum quality levels so as to prevent degradation of service, usage 'restrictions and/or limitations and the slowing of traffic. Where' there is a lack of effective competition, national regulatory authorities should use the remedies available to them under the Directives establishing the regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services to ensure that users’ access to any type of content or applications is guaranteed as far as possible. It should also be possible for national regulatory authorities to issue guidelines setting minimum quality of service requirements under Directive 2002/22/EC and to take other measures where such other remedies have, in their judgement, not been effective with regard to the interests of users and all other relevant 'circumstances. Such guidelines or measures could include the' provision of a basic tier of unrestricted services.


 * Voting recommendation: for

Amendment 155 ++

 * Article 1 – point 13 – point b amending Directive 2002/22/EC Article 22 – paragraph 3 tabled by IND/DEM

3. A national regulatory authority may issue guidelines setting minimum quality of service requirements, and, if appropriate, take other measures, in order to prevent degradation of service and slowing of traffic over networks, and to ensure that the ability of users to access or distribute content or to run applications and services of their choice is guaranteed as far as technically 'possible. Those guidelines or measures shall take due account of any' standards issued under Article 17 of Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive). The Commission may, having examined such guidelines or measures and consulted [xxx], adopt technical implementing measures in that regard if it considers that the guidelines or measures may create a barrier 'to the internal market. Those' measures, designed to amend non-essential elements of this Directive by supplementing it, shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 37(2).


 * Voting recommendation: for

Amendment 156 ++

 * Article 2 – point 3 – point a a (new) amending Directive 2002/58/EC Article 4 – paragraph 1 a (new) tabled by IND/DEM

(aa) the following paragraph shall be inserted: "1a. Without prejudice to the provisions of Directive 95/46/EC and Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks [OJ L 105, 13.4.2006, p. 54.], these measures shall include: - appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure that  personal data can be accessed only by authorised personnel for   legally authorised purposes and to protect personal data stored or   transmitted against accidental or unlawful destruction, accidental   loss or alteration and unauthorised or unlawful storage,   processing, access or disclosure; - appropriate technical and organisational measures to preserve the  integrity, confidentiality and availability of networks and  services; - a security policy with respect to the processing of personal data; - a process for identifying and assessing reasonably foreseeable  vulnerabilities in the systems maintained by the provider of  electronic communications services, which shall include regular  monitoring for security breaches; and - a process for taking preventive, corrective and mitigating action  against any vulnerabilities discovered in the process described  under the fourth indent and a process for taking preventive,  corrective and mitigating action against security incidents that  can lead to a security breach.


 * Voting recommendation: for

Amendment 157 ++

 * Annex I – Part B – point b b (new) amending Directive 2002/22/EC Annex I – Part B – point b b (new) tabled by IND/DEM

(bb) Protection software Member States shall ensure that national regulatory authorities are able to require operators to make available free of charge to their subscribers reliable, easy-to-use, and freely and fully configurable protection and/or filtering software to prevent access by children or vulnerable people to content unsuitable to them. Traffic monitoring data that this software may collect is for the sole use of the subscriber only.''


 * Voting recommendation: for

Amendment 160 +

 * Recital 14 tabled by GUE/NGL

(14) A competitive market should ensure that end-users are able to access and distribute any lawful content and to use any lawful applications and/or services of their choice, as stated in Article 8 of Directive 2002/21/EC. Given the increasing importance of electronic communications for consumers and businesses, users should in any case be fully informed of any restrictions and/or limitations imposed on the use of electronic communications services by the service and/or network provider. Such restrictions should not discriminate particular types of content or applications. Where there is a lack of effective competition, national regulatory authorities should use the remedies available to them in Directive 2002/19/EC to ensure that users’ access to particular types of content or applications is guaranteed as far as technically possible.


 * Voting recommendation: for

Amendment 163 ++

 * Annex I – Part B – point b b (new) amending Directive 2002/22/EC Annex I – Part B – point b b (new) tabled by GUE/NGL

(bb) Protection software Member States shall ensure that national regulatory authorities are able to require operators to make available free of charge to their subscribers reliable, easy-to-use, and freely and fully configurable protection and/or filtering software to prevent access by children or vulnerable people to content unsuitable to them. Traffic monitoring data that this software may collect is for the sole use of the subscriber only.''


 * Voting recommendation: for

Amendment 166 ++

 * Article 1 – point 19 a (new) amending Directive 2002/22/EC Article 32 a (new) tabled by GUE/NGL

Article 32a ACCESS TO CONTENT, SERVICES AND APPLICATIONS Member States shall ensure that any restrictions to users' rights to access content, services and applications, if they are necessary, shall be implemented by appropriate measures, in accordance with the principles of proportionality, effectiveness and dissuasiveness. These measures shall not have the effect of hindering the development of the information society, in compliance with the Directive 2000/31/EC, and shall not conflict with citizens' fundamental rights, including the right to privacy and the right to due process.

Amendment 169 ++

 * Recital 12 c (new) tabled by Verts/ALE

(12c) In order to address public interest issues, rights and freedoms with respect to the use of communications services, the relevant national authorities should be able to produce and disseminate, with the aid of providers, public interest information related to the use 'of communications services. The information could be coordinated by' way of the cooperation procedure established in Article 33 of 'Directive 2002/22/EC. Such public interest information should be' updated whenever necessary and should be presented in easily comprehensible printed and electronic formats, as determined by each 'Member State, and on national public authority websites. National' regulatory authorities should be able to oblige providers to disseminate this information to their customers in a manner deemed 'appropriate by the national regulatory authorities. Significant' additional costs incurred by service providers for dissemination of such information, for example if the provider is obliged to send the information by post and thereby incurs additional postage costs, should be agreed between the providers and the relevant authorities 'and met by those authorities. The information should also be included' in contracts.


 * Voting recommendation: for

Amendment 170 ++

 * Recital 14 tabled by Verts/ALE

End-users should decide what content they want to be able to send and receive, and which services, applications, hardware and software they want to use for such purposes, without prejudice to the need to preserve the integrity and security of networks and services. A competitive market with transparent offerings as provided for in Directive 2002/22/EC should ensure that end-users are able to access and distribute any content and to use any applications and/or services of their choice, as stated in Article 8 of Directive 2002/21/EC. Given the increasing importance of electronic communications for consumers and businesses, users should in any case be fully informed of any restrictions. Such restrictions should not discriminate in relation to particular types of content or applications. Where there is a lack of effective competition, national regulatory authorities should use the remedies available to them in Directive 2002/19/EC to ensure that users’ access to particular types of content or applications is guaranteed as far as technically possible.


 * Voting recommendation: for

Amendment 171 ++

 * Recital 14 a (new) tabled by Verts/ALE

(14a) A competitive market should also ensure that users are able to have the quality of service they require, but in particular cases it may be necessary to ensure that public communications networks attain minimum quality levels so as to prevent degradation of service, usage 'restrictions and/or limitations and the slowing of traffic. Where' there is a lack of effective competition, national regulatory authorities should use the remedies available to them under the Directives establishing the regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services to ensure that users’ access to any type of content or applications is guaranteed as far as possible. It should also be possible for national regulatory authorities to issue guidelines setting minimum quality of service requirements under Directive 2002/22/EC and to take other measures where such other remedies have, in their judgement, not been effective with regard to the interests of users and all other relevant 'circumstances. Such guidelines or measures could include the' provision of a basic tier of unrestricted services.


 * Voting recommendation: for

Amendment 172 ++

 * Article 1 – point 13 – point b amending Directive 2002/22/EC Article 22 – paragraph 3 tabled by Verts/ALE

3. A national regulatory authority may issue guidelines setting minimum quality of service requirements, and, if appropriate, take other measures, in order to prevent degradation of service and slowing of traffic over networks, and to ensure that the ability of users to access or distribute content or to run applications and services of their choice is guaranteed as far as technically 'possible. Those guidelines or measures shall take due account of any' standards issued under Article 17 of Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive). The Commission may, having examined such guidelines or measures and consulted [xxx], adopt technical implementing measures in that regard if it considers that the guidelines or measures may create a barrier 'to the internal market. Those' measures, designed to amend non-essential elements of this Directive by supplementing it, shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 37(2).


 * Voting recommendation: for

Amendment 173 ++

 * Article 1 – point 16 amending Directive 2002/22/EC Article 28 – paragraph 2 a (new) tabled by Verts/ALE

'2a. Member States shall ensure that national regulatory authorities' are able to require undertakings providing public communications networks to provide information regarding the management of their networks in connection with any limitations or restrictions on end-user access to or use of services, content or applications, provided these limitations or restrictions are intended to preserve 'network security and integrity. Member States shall ensure that' national regulatory authorities have all the powers necessary to investigate cases in which undertakings have imposed limitations on end-user access to services, content or applications.


 * Voting recommendation: for

Amendment 174 ++

 * Annex I – Part B – point b b (new) amending Directive 2002/22/EC Annex I – Part B – point b b (new) tabled by Verts/ALE

(bb) Protection software Member States shall ensure that national regulatory authorities are able to require operators to make available free of charge to their subscribers reliable, easy-to-use and freely and fully configurable protection and/or filtering software to prevent access by children or 'vulnerable people to content unsuitable to them. Traffic monitoring' data that this software may collect is for the sole use of the subscriber only.


 * Voting recommendation: for

Amendment 175 ++

 * Article 2 – point 3 – point a a (new) amending Directive 2002/58/EC Article 4 – paragraph 1 a (new) tabled by Verts/ALE

(aa) the following paragraph shall be inserted: "1a. Without prejudice to the provisions of Directive 95/46/EC and Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks [OJ L 105, 13.4.2006, p. 54.], these measures shall include: - appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure that  personal data can be accessed only by authorised personnel for   legally authorised purposes and to protect personal data stored or   transmitted against accidental or unlawful destruction, accidental   loss or alteration and unauthorised or unlawful storage,   processing, access or disclosure; - appropriate technical and organisational measures to preserve the  integrity, confidentiality and availability of networks and  services; - a security policy with respect to the processing of personal data; - a process for identifying and assessing reasonably foreseeable  vulnerabilities in the systems maintained by the provider of  electronic communications services, which shall include regular  monitoring for security breaches; and - a process for taking preventive, corrective and mitigating action  against any vulnerabilities discovered in the process described  under the fourth indent and a process for taking preventive,  corrective and mitigating action against security incidents that  can lead to a security breach.


 * Voting recommendation: for

Amendment 177 --

 * Recital 14 b (new) tabled by ALDE

(14b) In the absence of relevant rules of Community law, content, applications and services are deemed lawful or harmful in accordance 'with national substantive and procedural law. It is a task for the' relevant authorities of the Member States to decide, in accordance with due process, whether content, applications or services are lawful or harmful or not; providers of electronic communications networks or services will cooperate in good faith with those relevant authorities in the implementation of the legal effects of any such 'decision. Directive 2002/22/EC is without prejudice to Directive' 2000/31/EC (Directive on electronic commerce), which inter alia contains a "mere conduit" rule for intermediary service providers. Directive 2002/22/EC does not require providers to monitor information transmitted over their networks or to take punitive action or legal prosecution against their customers due to such information, nor does it make providers liable for the information. Responsibility for any such punitive action or legal prosecution remains with the relevant law enforcement authorities.


 * Voting recommendation: against

Amendment 179 --

 * Article 2 – point 6 a (new) amending Directive 2002/58/EC Article 15 – paragraph 1 tabled by PPE-DE

(6a) Article 15(1) shall be replaced by the following: "1. Member States may adopt legislative measures to restrict the scope of the rights and obligations provided for in Article 5, Article 6, Article 8(1), (2), (3) and (4), and Article 9 of this Directive when such restriction constitutes a necessary, appropriate and proportionate measure within a democratic society to safeguard national security (i.e. State security), defence, public security, and the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences or of unauthorised use of the electronic communication system or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, as referred to in Article 13(1) of Directive 95/46/EC. To this end, Member States may, inter alia, adopt legislative measures providing for the retention of data for a limited period justified on '''the grounds laid down in this paragraph. All the measures referred to''' in this paragraph shall be in accordance with the general principles of Community law, including those referred to in Article 6(1) and (2) of the Treaty on European Union."


 * Voting recommendation: against

Amendment 180 +

 * Recital 26 a (new) compromise tabled by PPE-DE, PSE and ALDE

(26a) The processing of traffic data for network and information security purposes, ensuring the availability, authenticity, integrity and confidentiality of stored or transmitted data will enable the processing of such data for the legitimate interest of the data controller for the purpose of preventing unauthorized access and malicious code distribution, stopping the denial of service attacks, 'and damages to computer and electronic communication systems. The' European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA) should publish regular studies with the purpose of illustrating the types of processing allowed under Article 6 of this Directive.


 * Voting recommendation: for

Amendment 181 +

 * Article 2 – point 4 b (new) amending Directive 2002/58/EC Article 6 – paragraph 6a (new) compromise tabled by PPE-DE, PSE and ALDE

(4b) in Article 6, the following paragraph shall be added: "6a. Without prejudice to compliance with the provisions other than Article 7 of Directive 95/46/EC and Article 5 of this Directive, traffic data may be processed  for the legitimate interest of the data controller for the purpose of implementing technical measures to ensure the network and information security, as defined by Article 4 (c) of Regulation (EC) 460/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 establishing the European Network and Information Security Agency [OJ L 77, 13.3.2004, p. 1.], of a public electronic communication service, a public or private electronic communications network, an information society service or related terminal and electronic communication equipment, except where such interests are overridden by the interests for the fundamental rights 'and freedoms of the data subject. Such processing must be restricted' to that which is strictly necessary for the purposes of such security activity."


 * Voting recommendation: for

Amendment 182 --

 * Recital 28 compromise tabled by ALDE, PPE-DE and PSE

(28) Technological progress allows the development of new applications based on devices for data collection and identification, which may be contactless devices using radio frequencies. For example, Radio Frequency Identification Devices (RFID) use radio frequencies to capture data from uniquely identified tags, which can then be transferred over existing communications networks. The wide use of such technologies can bring considerable economic and social benefits and thus make a powerful contribution to the internal market if their use is acceptable to citizens. To achieve that, it is necessary to ensure that all the fundamental rights of individuals, including the right to privacy and data protection, are safeguarded. When such devices are connected to publicly available electronic communications networks or make use of electronic communications services as a basic infrastructure, the relevant provisions of Directive 2002/58/EC, including those on security, traffic and location data and on confidentiality, should apply.


 * Voting recommendation: against

Amendment 183 -

 * Recital 29 compromise tabled by ALDE, PPE-DE and PSE

(29) A breach of security resulting in the loss or compromising personal data of a subscriber or individual may, if not addressed in an adequate and timely manner, result in substantial harm to users. Therefore, the national regulatory authority or other competent national authority should be notified by the relevant service provider of every security breach without delay. The competent authority should determine the seriousness of the breach and should require the relevant service providers to give an appropriate notification without undue delay to the persons affected by the 'breach, as appropriate. Furthermore, and in cases where there is' an imminent and direct danger for consumers' rights and interests (such as in cases of unauthorized access to the content of e-mails, access to credit card records, etc.), the relevant service providers should, in addition to the competent national authorities, 'immediately notify affected users directly. Finally, providers should' annually notify affected users of all breaches of security under this 'Directive that occurred during the relevant time period. The' notification to the national authorities and to users should include information about measures taken by the provider to address the breach, as well as recommendations for the protection of the users affected.


 * Voting recommendation: against

Amendment 184 -

 * Article 2 – point 3 – point b amending Directive 2002/58/EC Article 4 – paragraph 3, subparagraph 1a (new) compromise tabled by ALDE, PPE-DE and PSE

Notification of a security breach to a subscriber or individual shall not be required if the provider has demonstrated to the competent authority that it has implemented appropriate technological protection measures, and those measures were applied to the data 'concerned by the security breach. Such technological protection' measures shall render the data unintelligible to any person who is not authorized to access the data.


 * Voting recommendation: against

Amendment 185
'(27a) IP addresses are essential to the working of the internet. They' identify network participating devices, such as computers or mobile 'smart devices  by a number. Considering the different scenarios in' which IP addresses are used, and the related technologies which are rapidly evolving, questions have arisen about their use as personal 'data in certain circumstances. The Commission should' therefore conduct a study regarding IP addresses and their use and present such proposals as may be appropriate.
 * Recital 27 a (new) compromise tabled by ALDE, PPE-DE and PSE


 * Voting recommendation: abstain, while it is good to ask Commission for a study about use of IP addresses as personal data, no provision anticipating the result of this study should be adopted before. EDPS advise was more coercive. It would be OK if am186 is adopted.

Amendment 186 ++

 * Article 2 – point 7 a (new) amending Directive 2002/58/EC Article 18 – paragraph 1 a (new) compromise tabled by ALDE, PPE-DE and PSE

7a)The following paragraph is added to Article 18: "No later than two years from the date of entry into force of Directive 2008/.../EC [amending Directive 2002/22/EC on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks, Directive 2002/58/EC concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 on consumer protection cooperation], the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee a report, based on an in-depth study, with recommendations on standard uses of IP addresses and the application of the ePrivacy and Data Protection Directives as regards their collection and further processing, following the consultation of the EDPS, the Article 29 Working Party, and other stakeholders to include industry representatives."


 * Voting recommendation: for

Amendment 187 +

 * Article 2 – point 3 – point b amending Directive 2002/58/EC Article 4 – paragraph 3 compromise tabled by ALDE, PPE-DE and PSE

3. In case of a breach of security leading to the accidental or unlawful destruction, loss, alteration, unauthorised disclosure of or access to personal data transmitted, stored or otherwise processed in connection with the provision of publicly available communications services in the Community, the provider of publicly available electronic communications services, as well as any undertaking operating on the internet and providing services to consumers, which is the data controller and the provider of information society services shall, without undue delay, notify the national regulatory authority or the competent authority according to the individual law of the Member State of such a breach. The notification to the competent authority shall at least describe the nature of the breach and recommend measures to mitigate its possible negative effects. The notification to the competent authority shall, in addition, describe the consequences of and the measures taken by the provider to address the breach. The provider of publicly available electronic communications services, as well as any undertaking operating on the Internet and providing services to consumers, which is the data controller and the provider of information society services, shall notify their users beforehand to avoid imminent and direct danger to the rights and interests of consumers.


 * Voting recommendation: for

Amendment 190 -

 * Recital 14 c (new) compromise tabled by ALDE, PPE-DE and PSE replace Amendment 13

(14b) Directive 2002/22/EC is without prejudice to reasonable and non-discriminatory network management by providers.


 * Voting recommendation: against, reference to any "reasonable and non-discriminatory" (RAND) wording should be avoided, since such fuzzyness allows unwanted solutions.

Amendment 191 -

 * Recital 12 c (new) compromise tabled by ALDE, PPE-DE and PSE replace Amendment 9

(12c) In order to address public interest issues with respect to the use of communications services, and to encourage protection of the rights and freedoms of others, the relevant national authorities should be able to produce and have disseminated, with the aid of providers, public interest information related to the use of 'communications services. This information should include public' interest warnings regarding copyright infringement, other unlawful uses and dissemination of harmful content, and advice and means of protection against risks to personal security, which may for example arise from disclosure of personal information in certain 'circumstances, privacy and personal data. The information could be' coordinated by way of the cooperation procedure established in 'Article 33(2a) of Directive 2002/22/EC. Such public interest' information should be updated whenever necessary and it should be presented in easily comprehensible printed and electronic formats, as determined by each Member State, and on national public authority 'websites. National regulatory authorities should be able to oblige' providers to disseminate this standardised information to all their customers in a manner deemed appropriate by the national regulatory 'authorities. Significant additional costs incurred by service' providers for dissemination of such information should be agreed between the providers and the relevant authorities and met by those 'authorities. The information should also be included in contracts.'


 * Voting recommendation: against

Amendment 192 ---

 * Recital 25 compromise tabled by ALDE, PPE-DE and PSE

(25) In order to overcome existing shortcomings in terms of consumer consultation and appropriately address the interests of citizens, Member States should put in place appropriate consultation mechanisms. Such mechanisms could take the form of a body which would, independently from the national regulatory authority as well as from service providers, carry out research on consumer-related issues, such as consumer behaviour and mechanisms for changing suppliers, and which would operate in a transparent manner and contribute to the existing mechanisms for stakeholders’ consultation. Furthermore, a mechanism should be established for the purpose of enabling appropriate cooperation on issues relating to the promotion 'of lawful content. Any cooperation procedures agreed pursuant to such' a mechanism should however not allow for systematic surveillance of individual internet usage. Where there is a need to address the facilitation of the access to and use of electronic communications services and terminal equipment for disabled users, and without prejudice to Directive 1999/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity and in particular the disability requirements pursuant to its Article 3(3)(f), the Commission should be able to adopt implementing measures.


 * Voting recommendation: against

Amendment 193 -

 * Article 1 – point 13 – point b amending Directive 2002/22/EC Article 22 – paragraph 3 compromise tabled by ALDE, PPE-DE and PSE replace Amendment 81

3. A national regulatory authority may issue guidelines setting minimum quality of service requirements, and, if appropriate, take other measures, in order to prevent degradation of service and slowing of traffic over networks, and to ensure that the ability of users to access or distribute content or to run applications and 'services of their choice is not unreasonably restricted. Those' guidelines or measures shall take due account of any standards issued under Article 17 of Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive). The Commission may, having examined such guidelines or measures and consulted [xxx], adopt technical implementing measures in that regard if it considers that the guidelines or measures may create a barrier 'to the internal market. Those' measures designed to amend non-essential elements of this Directive by supplementing it shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 37(2).


 * Voting recommendation: against

Amendment 194 --

 * Recital 14 b (new) compromise tabled by PPE-DE and PSE

(14b) In the absence of relevant rules of Community law, content, applications and services are deemed lawful or harmful in accordance 'with national substantive and procedural law. It is a task for the' relevant authorities of the Member States, not for providers of electronic communications networks or services, to decide, in accordance with due process, whether content, applications or 'services are lawful or harmful or not. Directive 2002/22/EC is' without prejudice to Directive 2000/31/EC (Directive on electronic commerce), which inter alia contains a "mere conduit" rule for 'intermediary service providers. Directive 2002/22/EC does not require' providers to monitor information transmitted over their networks or to take punitive action or legal prosecution against their customers due to such information, nor does it make providers liable for the 'information. Responsibility for any such punitive action or legal' prosecution remains with the relevant law enforcement authorities.


 * Voting recommendation: against