Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2025:421
Date: 2025-06-05
Language of the case: Italian

Summary C-345/24 – 1 
Case C-345/24 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
10 May 2024 
Referring court: 
Consiglio di Stato (Italy) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
9 May 2024 
Appellant: 
Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni (AGCOM) 
Respondents: 
BRT SpA 
Federazione Italiana Trasportatori (FEDIT) 
Associazione Italiana dei Corrieri Aerei Internazionali (AICAI) 
DHL Express (Italy) Srl 
TNT Global Express Srl 
Fedex Express Italy Srl 
United Parcel Service Italia Srl 
Amazon Italia Transport Srl 
Amazon Italia Logistica Srl 
Amazon EU Sàrl 
  
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-345/24 
 
2  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Appeal before the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State, Italy) against the judgment 
of the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Regional Administrative 
Court, Lazio; ‘the TAR Lazio’), which, in an action brought by the current 
respondent transport undertakings, had annulled delibera n. 94/22/CONS 
(Decision No 94/22/CONS) of the Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni 
(Communications Regulatory Authority, Italy; ‘AGCOM’). That decision had 
introduced a series of obligations to provide information in the parcel delivery 
services market. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
Request for interpretation of Directive 97/67/EC and Regulation (EU) 2018/644 in 
order to clarify whether they are also applicable to non-cross-border delivery 
service providers. Possible incompatibility with the principle of non-
discrimination and with Articles 14, 114 and 169 TFEU. ‘Implied powers’ as a 
legal basis for the action of the national regulatory authority at issue in the present 
case, and the limits imposed by EU law on the power of national regulatory 
authorities to impose obligations to provide information. 
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1. Does Regulation (EU) 2018/644 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 18 April 2018 on cross-border parcel delivery services, with regard to 
the collection of information, apply as such only to cross-border delivery service 
providers or, in general, to all parcel delivery service providers, subject to specific 
exclusions relating to individual provisions? 
2. If the answer to Question 1 is that it applies only to cross-border delivery 
service providers, does Directive 97/67/EC, or do the so-called ‘implied powers’, 
provide the legal basis for the national regulatory authorities to impose, in any 
event, on delivery service providers, even non-cross-border ones, general 
obligations to provide information? 
3. If the answer to Question 2 is no, must the fact that Regulation (EU) 
2018/644 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 April 2018 does 
not apply to non-cross-border delivery providers be regarded as reasonable, non-
discriminatory and in accordance with Articles 14, 114 and 169 of the Treaty on 
the Functioning of the European Union? 
4. To what extent (including from the perspective of necessity and 
proportionality) can the national regulatory authority impose obligations to 
provide information on parcel delivery service providers and, in particular, is it 
possible to impose, on all providers without distinction, obligations to provide 
information concerning: 
AGCOM 
 
3 
(i) the conditions applied to different types of customers; 
(ii) the contracts which govern the relations between the individual undertaking 
that provides the parcel delivery service and the undertakings which in various 
ways, according to the specificities of the sector, contribute to providing that 
service; 
(iii) the economic conditions and the legal protection afforded to workers 
employed in various capacities in providing the service? 
Provisions of European Union law relied on 
Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of 
Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service, as amended 
by Directive 2008/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
20 February 2008, and in particular Article 22a thereof. 
Directive 2008/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
20 February 2008 amending Directive 97/67/EC with regard to the full 
accomplishment of the internal market of Community postal services, and in 
particular recital 51 thereof. 
Regulation (EU) 2018/644 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
18 April 2018 on cross-border parcel delivery services, and in particular Article 4 
thereof. 
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1263 of 20 September 2018 
establishing the forms for the submission of information by parcel delivery service 
providers pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2018/644 of the European Parliament and 
of the Council. 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Decreto legislativo 22 luglio 1999, n. 261 – Attuazione della direttiva 97/67/CE 
concernente regole comuni per lo sviluppo del mercato interno dei servizi postali 
comunitari e per il miglioramento della qualità del servizio (Legislative Decree 
No 261 of 22 July 1999 transposing Directive 97/67/EC on common rules for the 
development of the internal market of Community postal services and the 
improvement of quality of service; ‘Legislative Decree No 261/99’), in particular 
Articles 2 and 14bis. 
Delibera n. 94/22/CONS, dell’Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni 
(AGCOM), del 31 marzo 2022, recante ‘Obblighi regolamentari nel mercato dei 
servizi di consegna dei pacchi’ (AGCOM Decision No 94/22/CONS of 31 March 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-345/24 
 
4  
2022 on regulatory obligations in the parcel delivery services market ), in 
particular Articles 1 and 2. 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 Following a complex and lengthy procedure, during which several decisions were 
adopted concerning analyses and public consultations on the parcel delivery 
services market, AGCOM adopted Decision No 94/22/CONS of 31 March 2022 
on regulatory obligations in the parcel delivery services market. It introduces 
certain ‘symmetric’ obligations to provide information, that is to say, obligations 
imposed on all operators of a certain size operating in the parcel delivery services 
market, and ‘asymmetric’ obligations to provide information, imposed solely on 
Amazon. 
2 The ‘symmetric’ obligations to provide information are purportedly intended to 
increase the level of monitoring in the market concerned, owing to the lack of 
transparency found therein. In particular, they are obligations imposed on all 
persons authorised to provide the public with parcel delivery postal services which 
employ, in postal activities, at least 50 employees and have achieved, for at least 
three consecutive years, an annual turnover relating to activities falling within the 
scope of postal services, as defined in Article 1(2)(a) of Legislative Decree 
No 261/1999, in excess of EUR 10 million. 
Those symmetric obligations to provide information concern: information on the 
economic conditions of the services offered to the public; the economic conditions 
of reference (average prices) for certain groups of business customers identified 
on the basis of annual turnover; the contracts in force governing commercial 
relations with the undertakings in the sector, with which they have directly entered 
into a contract, which contribute to the provision of the postal service; a 
declaration on compliance with working conditions, with regard to all persons 
involved in the provision of the service and at all levels of the network 
organisation; and the standard framework contracts used for personnel belonging 
to the different categories at each organisational level. 
3 On the other hand, as regards the ‘asymmetric’ obligations to provide information, 
these are obligations that AGCOM decided to impose only on Amazon because of 
the critical points arising from the analysis of the parcel delivery services market. 
In particular, Amazon, in addition to the information listed above, must provide 
AGCOM with the following information: the average price applicable to retailers 
(‘retail’) participating in Amazon’s logistics programme (so-called ‘FBA’) for the 
delivery service; the average unit price paid to ‘Delivery Service Providers’ 
(DSPs) for the delivery service; and the average unit price paid to other delivery 
operators for the delivery service. 
4 AGCOM Decision No 94/22/CONS was challenged, by four separate actions, 
before the TAR Lazio by Associazione Italiana dei Corrieri Aerei Internazionali 
AGCOM 
 
5 
(AICAI), DHL Express Italy, TNT Global Express, Fedex Express Italy, United 
Parcel Service Italia, BRT and Federazione Italiana Trasportatori (FEDIT) 
(together, ‘operators other than Amazon’), as well as by Amazon Italia Transport, 
Amazon Italia Logistica and Amazon EU (together, ‘Amazon’). 
5 The TAR Lazio, by four separate judgments, upheld the four actions and annulled 
AGCOM Decision No 94/22/CONS. The reasons for upholding those actions 
were, however, different. In the three proceedings brought by operators other than 
Amazon, that court noted, in the first place, the lack of a proper preliminary 
investigation for the AGCOM decision. In particular, AGCOM had allegedly 
introduced obligations to provide information in B2B (‘business-to-business’) 
sectors in which the preliminary investigation carried out had not identified any 
issues which would justify regulatory intervention. In the proceedings brought by 
Amazon, on the other hand, the reason for upholding the action was not the lack 
of preliminary investigation, since issues had in fact arisen in the B2C (‘business-
to-consumer’) sector, but rather the alleged lack of a ‘sound’ legal basis. 
6 By four separate appeals, AGCOM challenged those TAR Lazio annulment 
judgments before the Council of State, the referring court. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
7 In the appeal in which the respondent is Amazon, AGCOM criticises the judgment 
of the TAR Lazio in so far as it considers, first, that AGCOM does not have the 
power to impose regulatory obligations (symmetric or asymmetric) on Amazon 
and, secondly, that Decision 94/22/CONS did not state, with sufficient clarity, the 
legal basis for the decision to impose those obligations to provide information. 
8 As regards Regulation No 2018/644, AGCOM submits, in the first place, that that 
regulation does not apply exclusively to cross-border parcel delivery service 
providers but instead, in general, to parcel delivery service providers, including 
Amazon, since that company uses international delivery networks for the delivery 
of goods sold by third parties and the companies of the Amazon group may be 
classified as postal operators. Secondly, the scope of application of that regulation 
is not limited to traditional business models, but is instead extended to alternative 
business models, including e-commerce platforms. Thirdly, the fact that Amazon 
does not carry out cross-border parcel delivery activities does not preclude the 
application of the regulation to it, since, where the regulation intended to refer 
specifically to (only) cross-border providers, it did so expressly (as in Article 5 on 
cross-border tariffs, whereas Article 4, on ‘Provision of information’, is addressed 
without distinction to all parcel delivery service providers). Fourthly, the TAR 
Lazio wrongly ruled out that that regulation could constitute a valid basis for the 
exercise of AGCOM’s regulatory power vis-à-vis Amazon in the light of the fact 
that it is a non-cross-border operator. Finally, AGCOM has the power to lay down 
rules on regulatory oversight on the basis of Directive 97/67/EC and Legislative 
Decree No 261/1999, and on the basis of Regulation 2018/644 which, in 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-345/24 
 
6  
Article 4(5), expressly recognises that national regulatory authorities may impose 
obligations to provide information additional to those laid down in that regulation. 
9 As regards Directive 97/67/EC, AGCOM submits that the TAR Lazio 
misinterpreted that Directive by stating that its purpose was to address ‘specific 
cross-border issues’. According to AGCOM, the objectives and scope of 
application of Directive 97/67/EC are, on the contrary, much wider, since it aims 
to improve postal services offered within Europe for the delivery of 
correspondence and packages and to harmonise the rights enforceable by 
European citizens, with regard to both national and cross-border postal services. 
AGCOM is therefore entitled to adopt regulatory remedies in order to carry out 
the tasks thus allocated, including the promotion of competition and the protection 
of users of postal services. In addition, there is no specific obligation to indicate, 
explicitly and on pain of annulment of the measure adopted, the regulatory source 
of the exercise of the power. 
10 As regards the basis for the regulatory power exercised by Decision 
No 94/22/CONS, AGCOM asserts that it acted lawfully within the scope of the 
powers conferred on it by Directive 97/67/EC and by the national implementing 
legislation (Legislative Decree No 261/99). The fact-finding powers available to it 
as a national regulatory authority were exercised on the basis of those regulatory 
measures and on the basis of Regulation No 2018/644, in which those powers 
were subsequently confirmed and detailed further. 
11 The tasks assigned to AGCOM by the national implementing legislation, such as 
the function of ‘promoting competition’ (Article 2(4)(d) of Legislative Decree 
No 261/1999), activities of ‘analysing and monitoring postal markets, in particular 
as regards the price of services’ (Article 2(4)(g) of Legislative Decree 
No 261/1999) and, more generally, ‘regulating postal markets’ [Article 2(4)(a) of 
Legislative Decree No 261/1999], cannot be carried out without correct and 
complete knowledge of the markets. 
12 In addition, as stated in recital 51 of Directive 2008/6/EC, national regulatory 
authorities for the postal sector ‘need to gather information from market players in 
order to carry out their tasks effectively …’. 
13 In the present case, AGCOM maintains that it carried out an analysis of the parcel 
delivery services market which revealed a lack of transparency regarding the 
conditions for offering delivery services at national level, as well as a lack of 
transparency regarding the structure of the network and compliance with the 
working conditions of the personnel employed in the various stages of providing 
the postal service. 
14 In the light of those critical points, as well as the evolution of the parcel delivery 
services market (the growth of the B2C market and the prospect of its further 
development, the role of platforms, the very high number of operators, and the 
forms of organisation of the undertaking and of the work which do not correspond 
AGCOM 
 
7 
to the arrangements normally applied in the sector), AGCOM therefore considered 
that ‘an increase in the level of regulatory oversight is necessary for more 
effective monitoring of the parcel delivery market, enabling regulatory 
interventions aimed at promoting competition and preventing situations of 
distortion from arising’. 
15 The decision at issue is therefore allegedly justified in so far as it seeks to promote 
competition: the obligations to provide information are intended to strengthen 
competitiveness by increasing transparency for the benefit of consumers and small 
and medium-sized enterprises. 
16 In the TAR Lazio judgment in relation to Amazon, AGCOM then notes that there 
is an error in the part which states that the additional obligations to provide 
information must in any event serve to improve cross-border delivery services in 
accordance with Regulation 2018/644. 
17 AGCOM submits that the imposition of the obligations to provide information 
laid down in the decision addresses the findings in the national market and the 
related specific objectives pursued by it (constant and timely monitoring of all the 
internal dynamics of the parcel delivery market and, in particular, of the factors 
that most affect the competitive capacity of the operators, such as prices and 
working conditions). Consequently, the view of the TAR Lazio that Regulation 
No 2018/644 alone is the basis for the regulatory power exercised in Decision 
No 94/22/CONS and that the ‘necessity’ of the regulatory measures laid down 
therein is to be assessed solely on the basis of that regulation and the objectives 
set out therein is incorrect, illogical and unreasonable. 
18 Moreover, AGCOM considers that the judgment under appeal is incorrect also in 
so far as it rules out that, in the present case, the imposition of the obligations to 
provide information at issue may be justified by the theory of so-called ‘implied 
powers’. In its view, although, as a general rule, a strict application of the 
principle of legality requires that primary legislation expressly confers regulatory 
powers on the independent authorities, the fact remains that the basis for those 
powers may be inferred implicitly from legislative provisions aimed at defining 
the tasks and objectives of those authorities. 
19 In the judgments delivered in the proceedings brought at first instance by 
operators other than Amazon, the TAR Lazio did not have doubts as to the 
existence of the power of AGCOM to impose, in general, obligations to provide 
information on postal operators, but rather, in addition to noting the lack of a 
proper preliminary investigation, instead had doubts, in the specific case, as to the 
necessity and proportionality of the general obligations to provide information set 
out in Article 1 of Decision No 94/22/CONS. 
20 Nevertheless, in the three appeals against the three judgments cited above, 
AGCOM puts forward a ground of appeal concerning the legal basis of the power 
exercised by the adoption of Decision No 94/22/CONS. In that regard, it submits 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-345/24 
 
8  
that the TAR Lazio, starting from the incorrect assumption that that legal basis is 
to be found solely in Regulation 2018/644, carried out the assessment on the basis 
of the regulatory intervention and the necessity and proportionality of the 
obligations to provide information imposed by adopting as the sole parameter of 
reference that regulation and not also, and not even, Directive 1997/67/EC (in 
particular Article 22a, introduced by Directive 2008/6/EC) and the national 
implementing legislation (Legislative Decree No 261/99), as well as recital 51 of 
Directive 2008/6/EC. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
21 The referring court has doubts, first of all, as to the existence and possible 
extension of AGCOM’s power to impose obligations to provide information such 
as those at issue in the present case, in particular on providers of non-cross-border 
delivery services such as Amazon. 
22 Those doubts stem from the fact that AGCOM, in the appeal pleadings referred to 
above, maintains that its powers (also) derive from certain ‘recitals’ of Directive 
97/67/EC and Regulation No 2018/644, and, in particular, from recital 51 of 
Directive 2008/6/EC. Reliance on ‘recitals’ may reveal the difficulty in 
identifying a clear and explicit rule on which the powers exercised could be based. 
The abovementioned legislation, on that point, may seem vague and not entirely 
precise. 
23 In that regard, the other decisions of AGCOM in which the complex procedure 
leading up to Decision No 94/22/CONS unfolded do not provide clarity either. It 
is apparent from some of those decisions that AGCOM even explicitly ruled out 
that the power to impose obligations to provide information arises from 
Regulation 2018/644, whereas, in the present case, it asserts the opposite. 
24 Another issue in relation to which the referring court has doubts concerns 
Article 9 of Directive 97/67/EC. That article provides that ‘for services which fall 
outside the scope of the universal service, Member States may introduce general 
authorisations to the extent necessary to guarantee compliance with the essential 
requirements’. 
25 The essential requirements are defined in Article 2, paragraph 1, point 19 of the 
Directive, which reads as follows: 
‘essential requirements: general non-economic reasons which can induce a 
Member State to impose conditions on the supply of postal services. These reasons 
are the confidentiality of correspondence, security of the network as regards the 
transport of dangerous goods, respect for the terms and conditions of 
employment, social security schemes, laid down by law, regulation or 
administrative provision and/or by collective agreement negotiated between 
national social partners, in accordance with Community and national law and, 
where justified, data protection, environmental protection and regional planning. 
AGCOM 
 
9 
Data protection may include personal data protection, the confidentiality of 
information transmitted or stored and protection of privacy’. 
26 Whilst in relation to Amazon the issue is whether AGCOM has any legal basis to 
intervene whatsoever, in relation to the other operators which are parties to the 
remaining appeals the issue instead concerns how far AGCOM may go in 
establishing obligations to provide information. There is a need to clarify, in 
essence, whether the obligations imposed by AGCOM may be justified by one of 
the essential requirements listed in Article 2, point 19, of Directive 97/67/EC and 
whether they are proportionate, in so far as they are suitable for securing the 
objectives pursued and those objectives cannot be achieved by more limited 
obligations. 
27 In that regard, it should be recalled that Article 14bis of Legislative Decree 
No 261/1999, implementing Article 22a of Directive 97/67/EC, provided for a 
typical informational power which may be exercised individually and must, in 
each case, respect the principle of proportionality. AGCOM may collect 
information from operators in order to be able to carry out the assigned tasks 
effectively, by addressing each of the operators whose activities are considered to 
be of interest for the actual exercise of the functions specifically allocated by the 
European and national legislature, and on the basis of relevant grounds and timely 
requests. 
28 It is not clear, according to the referring court, whether those rules also allow for 
the possibility of imposing generalised obligations to provide information or 
whether they may constitute the legal basis for the exercise of those powers.