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

[Ramon Roca]

Al 05/12/09 14:14, En/na Paolo Brini ha escrit:
> 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?
>    
Yes. Those devices have the "CE" logo.
Also there are other manufacturers which can be used as en example. Some 
of them from European countries such Lituania, Poland...
> 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.
>    
My suggestion is, before going to the UE, is to approach the Italian 
Regulator to confirm their position about the need for specific 
authorizations.
Someone should take a look to what's the format procedure for that in Italy.
A carefull reading of the Italian regulation should be done, afaik:
http://www.urpcomunicazioni.it/codice_comunicazioni.htm

>
> 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
>
>
>