Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2007:268
Date: 2007-05-08
Language of the case: Spanish
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Competition;Agreements, decisions and concerted practices;Freedom to provide services
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Spain

Summary of the Judgment 1. Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – Jurisdiction of the national court (Art. 234 EC) 2. Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 234 EC) 3. Freedom to provide services – Community postal services – Directive 97/67 – Services reserved to universal postal service providers (Art. 86(2) EC; European Parliament and Council Directive 97/67, Art. 7(2)) 1. In proceedings under Article 234 EC, it is solely for the national court before which the dispute has been brought, and which must assume responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision, to determine in the light of the particular circumstances of the case both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable it to deliver judgment and the relevance of the questions which it submits to the Court. Consequently, where the questions submitted concern the interpretation of Community law, the Court is in principle bound to give a ruling. (see para. 23) 2. The mere fact that the Court is called upon to give a decision in abstract and general terms cannot have the effect of rendering a reference for a preliminary ruling inadmissible. It is one of the essential characteristics of the system of judicial cooperation established under Article 234 EC that the Court replies in rather abstract and general terms to a question on the interpretation of Community law referred to it, while it is for the referring court to give a ruling in the dispute before it, taking into account the Court’s reply. (see para. 24) 3. Article 7(2) of Directive 97/67 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service, which provides that, to the extent necessary to ensure the maintenance of universal service, cross-border mail and direct mail may continue to be reserved within the price and weight limits laid down in Article 7(1), must be interpreted as allowing Member States to reserve cross-border mail to the universal postal service provider only in so far as they establish: – that, in the absence of such a reservation, achievement of that universal service would be precluded; or – that that reservation is necessary to enable that service to be carried out under economically acceptable conditions. The objective of Article 7(2) of Directive 97/67 is to guarantee maintenance of the universal postal service, in particular by providing the necessary resources to enable it to operate under financially balanced conditions. However, the condition laid down in that provision cannot be reduced to a single financial issue, inasmuch as it cannot be ruled out that there may be other reasons for which, in accordance with Article 86(2) EC, the Member States can decide to reserve cross-border mail in order to ensure that the universal postal service provider is not prevented from achieving its specific objective. Considerations, such as expediency, relating to the overall situation in the postal sector, including that linked to the degree of liberalisation of the market at the time when a decision is taken as regards cross-border mail, are not enough to justify the reservation of cross-border mail, unless, in the absence of such a reservation, the achievement of a universal postal service would be prevented, or the reservation is necessary to ensure that the universal service can be provided under acceptable economic conditions. (see paras 31, 40-41, 50, operative part)