EUROPEAN COMMISSION  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Brussels, 19.3.2021 
SEC(2021) 388 final 
 
 REGULATORY SCRUTINY BOARD OPINION  
 
 REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 
AND THE COUNCIL on the application of the Postal Services Directive (Directive 
97/67/EC as amended by Directive 2002/39/EC and 2008/6/EC)  
 
 
{SWD(2021) 309 final } 
{SWD(2021) 3 10 final } 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 ________________________________  
This opinion concerns a draft evaluation which may differ from the final version. 
Commission européenne, B-1049 Bruxelles - Belgium. Office: BERL 08/010. E-mail: regulatory-scrutiny-board@ec.europa.eu  EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Regulatory Scrutiny Board 
 
Brussels,  
RSB 
Opinion 
Title: Evaluation of the common rules for the development of the internal market of 
Community postal services  
Overall opinion: POSITIVE 
(A) Policy context 
The Postal Services Directive has progressively opened up all postal activities to 
competition. It did this while safeguarding the provision of an EU-wide universal postal 
service. It dates from 1997 and was revised in 2002 and 2008. 
The Commission reports on the application of the Directive every four years. The next 
report will be accompanied by an evaluation. This will take account of the significant 
changes in the postal market resulting from digitalisation and e-commerce. 
The evaluation examines the performance of the Directive. It assesses if it guarantees 
affordable, high-quality universal postal service to all users and a well-functioning and 
competitive internal market.  
 
(B) Summary of findings 
The Board notes the useful additional information provided in advance of the 
meeting and commitments to make changes to the report. 
The Board gives a positive opinion. The Board also considers that the report should 
further improve with respect to the following aspects:   
(1) The report does not provide a clear overview of what was expected to happen 
between the revision of 2008 and now. 
(2) The report lacks credible evidence on the needs and degree of satisfaction of 
users of postal services. The evidence on how the Directive and changes in 
demand affected network economies and costs of service providers is incomplete. 
(3) The report does not analyse sufficiently the reasons behind the limited 
improvement in competition. 
 

 
2 
 (C) What to improve 
(1) The report provides relevant information on the outcomes of the Directive. However, 
the report should better explain what was expected to happen between 2008 and now. It 
should describe the points of comparison more clearly. This would help to assess the extent 
to which the outcomes are related to shortcomings in the Directive itself, to its 
implementation or to external factors. 
(2) The report seems to assume that certain changes in the quality of postal services, such 
as the reduction of the scope of the universal service or its frequency, are always a 
response to changing consumer needs. Based on additional evidence (e.g. national surveys 
on consumers’ perceptions), the report should consider whether they have resulted in lower 
consumer satisfaction. It should present a more differentiated picture of the developments 
affecting user needs and satisfaction, for example by referring separately to individual 
users and businesses.  
(3) The report is quite clear that the Directive has not been effective in stimulating 
effective competition in the letter mail segment. It should analyse more in depth the 
reasons behind this, in particular given that this was one of the main objectives. The report 
should discuss the extent to which the limited progress in competition is due to deficiencies 
in the Directive, to limitations in the instruments or empowerment of national regulators, 
or to other factors. It should analyse to what extent scale and network economies of 
incumbents limit entry. It should expand on how the Directive has led to specialisation in 
the market for postal services. The report should discuss whether cross-subsidisation, 
which is prohibited in the Directive, is no longer a problem. It should also elaborate on the 
possible reasons why Member States have not used public procurement to designate 
universal service providers. 
(4) The report could provide more information on the role of the compensation funds in 
preserving the provision of the universal service. 
(5) The report should elaborate more on the views of different stakeholders (e.g. 
regulators, operators, users) on the functioning of the Directive and its continued 
relevance. 
(6) The report should include additional evidence to support its conclusions. Where 
relevant, it should acknowledge that the evidence base remains weak and avoid drawing 
strong conclusions. 
Some more technical comments have been sent directly to the author DG.  
 
 
(D) Conclusion 
The DG may proceed. The DG must take these recommendations into account before 
launching the interservice consultation.  
Full title Evaluation of 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 amended by 
Directives 2002/39/EC and 2008/6/EC (Postal Services 
Directive) 
Reference number PLAN/2019/5774 
 
3 
 Submitted to RSB on 18 February 2021 
Date of RSB meeting 17 March 2021 
 
Electronically signed on 19/03/2021 10:32 (UTC+01) in accordance with article 11 of Commission Decision C(2020) 4482