More than half of EU countries are still worried about rules contained in the upcoming telecoms ‘package’ of legislation, which is expected to regulate the electronic communications landscape in Europe as of next year, EurActiv said yesterday.

On 13 November, 2007, the European Commission proposed a general review of rules governing electronic communications. The package provided for the establishment of a new EU telecoms authority, the introduction of functional separation to spur competition, a review of radio spectrum management and a range of consumer protection measures.

The new rules were approved by the European Parliament at their first reading in September 2008. But the EU Council of Ministers took divergent positions on many issues, triggering a range of inter-institutional negotiations which ended up with apparent compromises in March and April 2009.

The most controversial issue concerns the protection of Internet users, enshrined in the notorious Amendment 138. In a surprise move, the European Parliament blocked the reform in May 2009 by rejecting an earlier compromise with member states over the protection of Internet users’ rights.

The rejection came in response to a draft French anti-piracy bill, which had caused uproar among MEPs and consumer groups because it suggested that the Internet connections of users of peer-to-peer services could be cut without the prior intervention of judicial authorities.

At least 14 member states have spent the last week writing so-called declarations to be added to the EU’s telecoms package, which is due for a final vote in the European Parliament today.

The tweaks concern two main points: The use of cookies and the European Commission’s future regulatory powers.

The Dutch, for instance, are worried about new powers granted to the Commission under the new rules. For the first time, they say, the EU executive will be able to criticise the steps taken by a national regulator in response to a problem flagged by Brussels.

If, after two years, the Commission’s criticism has not been taken into account, it can make a legally-binding decision which could have far-reaching implications for telecoms operators.

In a document seen by EurActiv, the Netherlands stated that “national regulators should have more latitude to take account of specific market circumstances and not be able to be overruled by the Commission in doing so.”

Sources close to the EU executive say the Dutch declaration shows that the country’s delegation has understood the implications of the package, but that the new procedure is critical for improving the EU single telecoms market.

Decisions will ultimately be made at the European telecoms authority (BEREC), made up of regulators from the 27 member states, the source added, insisting that the Commission will not be acting alone.

In addition, last week, the UK, Austria, Belgium, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Latvia, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Spain insisted on inserting a couple of lines regarding so-called Internet cookies.

The EU text states that those distributing cookies – a tool used by marketers to track a user’s Internet habits and send targeted advertising – must seek authorisation from the user before installing the trackers on their browser.

The declaration will give member states some leeway in that operators will not have to ask for authorisation every time a cookie is sent, according to MEPs working on the package.

The two sets of declarations appear to represent a last-ditch attempt by member states to extend the scope on how the laws will be transposed into their own national legislation.

The EU’s telecoms package has undergone an arduous negotiation procedure on several contentious details and has been passed from Parliament to Council and back again to smooth out irreconcilable points.

The entire package became hostage to a row on fundamental rights last summer and was moved to the end of this year.

In particular, a substantial delegation of MEPs pushed for an amendment to provide those suspected of illegal downloading with the right to a fair trial.