[Ninux-day] Fwd: Re: Wrap-up

[Paolo Brini]

Ramon Roca ha scritto:
>
> IMHO, 1999/5/EC is at the core of the argument: If current Art. 5 of
> the 2002/20/CE states that we should be under the general
> authorization, without even having to notify anyone, and fall us under
> the 1999/5/EC looks clear to me that a nation regulator or a member
> state can not, afterwards, require any sort or specific
> authorization/notification. Regarding to this, to me, current
> 2002/20/CE looks more clear than the ammended, however 1999/5/EC is
> still mentioned on the annex.
> Don't know if there is a way that Pisanu law can claim any exception
> for that.

Good! So, it's better to use Directive already in foce. I'll ask and see
if Pisanu law can obtain some exception due to severe and justified
reasons of national security (it's absurd but the law is to counter
terrorism).

Furthermore, I can safely assume that articles 7 and 8 of 1999/5/EC
cover ubiquitous nanostations, right?

When we are done I think I'll pass all the info to the group which is
campaigning (also through one the biggest and most sold weekly magazine)
against Pisanu law to obtain that coordination you were talking about.
The decision on the law is for the 31st of December and there are also
the objective difficulties you rightl mentioned, so I guess it's better
to renounce (of course only momentarily) to a formal complaint to the
General-Secretary of the Commission.


When I wrote:


>> It should be common
>> practive for Member States to adopt laws which are incompatible with
>> already adopted Directives, although those Directives are not yet into
>> force.

Obviously this is a typo. It should have been "It should be common
practice for Member States *NOT* to adopt laws which are incompatible..."

Regards,
Paolo