The Buzz Phone Company - EC Law - Essay Example

Introduction The EC law is known as the European Community Competition law. It is a law put in place by the European Union (EU) to ensure that the movement of goods and people out and in to the market in Europe is fair and just in all countries. It sets up laws to control production so as to give every European country an opportunity to develop economically. For years now, people in Europe have debated on the laws that will ensure humans and the environments are protected from pollution by industries. The electromagnetic frequency radiation (EMF) emitted by mobile phones have really affected the people’s health and the environment negatively. It is evident that the European Union needs to put some laws to prevent companies that produce mobile phones from producing phones with such negative impacts. Although the European Union set up a law on the amount of radiation a phone is expected to emit, the British government has not yet implemented it (Steiner, 2003, pp.51-60). The fact that the British government is reluctant in implementing the law, the French Verizon Phones Sarl company has raised a complaint that the phone companies in British need to adhere to the limit set by the EC laws on radiation. It is doing so because it has adhered to the regulations set. The British government is facing a little bit of set backs since the implementation by mobile phone companies in reducing the emission of radiation form phones will take longer than expected. The idea that implementation will be delayed was given by the UK Federation of Mobile Telephones Retailers (FMTR) as it is the joint body of all manufacturing and retailing phone industries. The federation and the government are working to ensure that the companies adhere to the rules of emission to protect the country form being sued by the French mobile company that has already written a complaint to the European Commission and the Member of the European Parliament (MEP) in the district where it is based (Steiner, 2003, pp.51-60). Can Verizon Phones Sarl bring legal proceedings against Buzz Phones in EC Law? The Buzz Phone Company is a British company that manufactures phones. The company does not adhere to the radiation limits set in mobile phones. It is faced with very many set backs in trying to adhere to the regulations. It is faced with high production costs due to high levels of unemployment in the area it is situated. For such reasons, it does not have enough money to implement on the regulations of radiations because it is expensive. The French company, Verizon Phones Sarl, has already written to the EU commission on the issue. It is not clear if it can lead to the legal proceedings or not (Cordis-Europa, 2008). If the French company, Verizon Phones Sarl, is concerned with the health of the people, then it has the right to sue the Buzz Phone Company. It is evident that there is a strong relationship when it comes to brain cancer and radiation from mobile phones. Ensuring that public health is achieved in nations is very important. The EC law state that it is a right for every European to have good health. The laws are to ensure that production of any kind of good does not affect the people or the environment negatively. It is evident that the use of mobile phones especially among the youth is increasing and the lack of following the limit of radiation set by the EC laws is endangering many people in getting brain cancer or any other cancer. The EC laws are also concerned with ensuring that the youth are safe due to protecting the future generation (European Commission, 2008). Verizon Phones Sarl Company can bring legal proceedings to the Buzz Phone Company because it will be protecting the whole of Europe from risks that can occur due to radiation. The phones from Buzz Phone Company do not follow the limit of radiation on mobile phones thus risking the entire European population in acquiring cancer of all kinds. The Verizon Phones Sarl Company is able to sue Buzz Phone Company on such grounds as protecting the Europeans from poor health. The law of EC on radiation limits is very clear that a firm or a company is not supposed to exceed the limit of radiation for the sake of preventing cancer cases from increasing. In addition, the legal proceedings will make sure that the French people are safe from the risks of cancer due to educating the people on the products of Buzz Phone Company (European Commission, 2008). Verizon and other phone companies that adhere to the directives of the limitations on radiation in mobile phones are bound to lose a lot of money. This is so because they use a lot of money to ensure that they follow the radiation limits set by the EC. The Verizon Company has a very high production cost because of using environmental friendly materials to limit radiation on mobile phones. It is evident that materials used to prevent the marginal social cost and bringing forth the marginal social benefit to rise are very expensive. On the contrary, those that increase the marginal social cost are very cheap. The EU, by setting the directives on the radiation limits, it is trying to reduce the marginal social cost brought about by the radiation on mobile phone; cancer thus poor public health. Increasing the marginal social benefit makes the production cost of a firm to be very high because the materials are usually expensive. For this reason, companies which are guided by profit making will not use these materials in order to reduce the production costs thus increasing the profit of the company. For such reasons, the competitions among firms that produce the same but differentiated goods do not compete from the same level. Buzz Phone Company is bound to make a lot of profit as compared to Verizon Phones Sarl Company which uses the marginal social benefit materials that are quite expensive thus reducing its profit margin. This means that Buzz Phone Company is using the wrong criteria in increasing its profits and competing with other mobile phone companies. According to the laws of the EC, every company is expected to adapt to the laws made to ensure equal opportunity of production (Craig, 2003, pp.234-245). Can Verizon Phones Sarl do anything about its pursuant to EC law? Verizon Phones Sarl is losing money because of the non-implementation of the Directive by the British government on limiting the radiation amounts on mobile phones. As discussed before, it is very expensive to implement the use of materials that will limit radiation on mobile phones. This is due to the high cost of products that increase the marginal benefit costs. The products of Verizon Phones Sarl Company are very expensive as compared to the Buzz Phone Company. The price difference is quite high making the customers shift from buying products by Verizon Phones Sarl to those produced by Buzz Phone Company. For this reason, it is losing a lot of money as it is producing according to the law of EC but it is not benefiting in any way instead it is making a lot of losses (Steiner, 2003, pp.51-60). Verizon Phone Sarl Company is not able to pursue the EC alone as it needs collective bargaining strategies to ensure that it is heard well. This is so because it can not attack the Buzz Phones Company directly but through the government. The government of France needs to join Verizon Phone Sarl in campaigning against the products of Buzz. This strategy will give it a louder voice than being alone fighting the government of Britain and Buzz (Steiner, 2003, pp.51-60). In addition, the EC law on mobile phone radiation limit is the same in all European countries. The Verizon Company can pursue the EC from this angle by arguing that the British phone company is not adhering to the laws. All European Union Companies need to adhere to the laws set in producing certain goods for the sake of protecting the people from any harm. It is evident that by proving that Buzz has not adhered to the regulations Verizon will definitely pursue the EC to consider closing down the company or making it products unpopular until it follows the rules. It can account that it is losing a lot of money by adhering to the law because of the lack of implementation by Buzz. This will indeed show the EC that there is unfair competition within the mobile phone industry and that the people they are governing are at a high risk of losing their lives due to cancer caused by radiations from mobile phones (European Commission, 2008). Can the British government delay implementation of the Directive for a short period if it has specific economic reasons for doing so? The British government is not expected to delay the implementation of the directives regardless of any reasons. This is so because the Directives were set up along time ago like in 2006. It had plenty of time to ensure that the mobile phone companies within its vicinity are following the rules to ensure that they put up the right radiation limits in mobile phones. More so, the EC law states that any product especially radios and mobile phones need to be safe. This Directive was formed in 1999 and the implementations were done immediately. This shows that the radiation limit can be adopted by Buzz despite the economic problems Britain if facing (European Convention, 2008). The directive set in 1999, stresses that products from manufacturers are expected to rule out the course of harm to the health of the public. This stresses the point that the British government has no excuse by delaying to implement the radiation limit in the mobile phone companies. All other European countries have implemented the limit thus the British government needs to follow their example and immediately implement it. Moreover, all other countries have implemented the act why not the British government? For instance it is not only in France that the implementation has been done but also in Norway. The manufacturing phone companies in Norway have come up with mobile phones that have a maximum of 0,005W/kg radiation and they use magnesium. The phones are known to have the lowest radiation levels in the European Union market (European Convention, 2008). In addition, the British government signed a treaty that it will ensure that the phone manufacturers will adhere to the regulations set to all European countries. The treaty, dictated that all countries need to use the current scientific technology in producing mobile phones. By manufacturing high radiated phones, it means that Buzz is not using the current scientific methods and technology in producing phones. The company is expected to be using the current technology to ensure that the goods produced are safer and faster to use (Tillotson, 2003, pp.112-120). By not implementing the rules set, it means that the British government does not respect the law. The EC laws calls for al companies to respect the restrictions made by the laws. The EC laws insist that the safety measures need to be followed and for this reason it has made guidance on how the companies can implement on such changes. A government is expected to have respect for life and to keep its citizens safe from any harm. For this reason, the British government has to put the safety measures on the radiation limits first before any thing. It is very important for it to understand that an economy fails due to poor public health. No matter the economic status, by increasing public health, the economy will also go up. In conclusion, the British government can not give any excuse for lack of implementing any law (Tillotson, 2003, pp.112-120). If the British government considered challenging the Directive itself based on EC law principles of subsidiary and proportionality, could it do so? It is a complex issue in relating the EC laws with the individual laws of each country. The EC has not yet and can not take over the national laws put up by individual countries. For instance, it will be very difficult for the British government to punish Buzz Phone Company due to the lack of implementing the radiation laws. This is so because the laws of EC and Britain are very different. The Buzz Company can argue that it is being punished against the constitutional rights of Britain. This gives the British government an upper hand by not implementing the regulations on the radiation limits. The principle of proportionality lacks between the EC laws and the constitutional laws of Britain. This makes implementations of particular rules and regulations to a company to be very difficult (Weatherill, 1999, pp. 230-245). Though the principle of subsidiary is to make sure that the laws by the EC are met at a local, national and regional level, it does not allow the EC to take any action apart from the areas it has power to regulate. It is evident that the British government can be attacked by the EC stating that it has competency in setting the radiation limits. This is so because the principle ensures that the regulations are met and they must reach the citizens at the local level. By this the EC has the right to argue that the citizens’ safety comes first. The main issue is that it will only attack the government and not the company because the company is protected by the British constitution. The principle of proportionality stresses that the EC will only venture in to a field whereby it is really needed. This goes hand in hand with the subsidiary principle. The British government can therefore argue that the Buzz Phone Company can stay a while as it tries to implement the radiation laws (Weatherill, 2000, pp. 45-67). Conclusion Even though the British government can argue and safe guard the Buzz Phone Company in implementing the radiation limit. It needs to know that its citizens are at stake by acquiring cancer due to high radiations from mobile phones. It needs to take up the law to limit radiation levels in mobile phones in its constitution. There is no need for it to mend an economy for people who are bound to die due to cancer attacks that can be prevented. Thus public health should come first before the mending of the economy. The government needs to understand that the public is at stake and making money by producing goods that are putting its citizens at a greater risk is not fair for them. It is supposed to protect its citizens in every way and insisting on regulations that promote public health is the most important strategy it can take. Joining up with the EC in limiting companies on the radiation levels will help a lot of people. It is evident that by following the regulations, it will also build better relationships with not only other European countries but also the international countries. Thus the government is supposed to help the Buzz Phone Company in making pones that meet the low radiation limits. It will be able to do so by educating the people on the new scientific technology that is safe and more so, subsidising the materials that can be used to meet the radiation limit. References Craig, T and de Burca, G., 2003. Accountability in the European law: EC law; Text, Cases and Materials, Law 3rd ed., published by Oxford university press. Pp. 234-245. Cordis-Europa, 2008. European community development and research, retrieved from http://www.cordis.lu/, on 21st January 2009. European Commission, 2008. The Directives 2006, on the radiation limits, retrieved from http://www.europa.eu.int, on 21st January 2009. The European Convention, 2008. The EC laws, retrieved from http://european-convention.eu.int/bienvenue.asp?lang=EN&Content=Cordis, on 21st January 2009. Steiner, P and Woods, L., 2003. The European Laws; Textbook on EC Law, published by Blackstone Press. Pp. 51-60. Tillotson, J., 2003. The European Union; EU Law; Text, Cases and Materials, 4th ed., published by Cavendish. Pp. 112-120. Weatherill, S., 1999. The general principles of EC: Law and Integration in the European Union, published by the Clarendon Law Series. Pp. 230-245. Weatherill, S., 2000. The principles of subsidiary and proportionality; Cases and Materials on EC Law, published by Blackstone Press. Pp. 45-67. Vincenzi, C., 2003. The European institutional law: Law of the European Community, published by Cavendish, 4th ed. Pp. 123-134. Read More