Case C-240/02

Asociación Profesional de Empresas de Reparto y Manipulado de Correspondencia (Asempre)

and

Asociación Nacional de Empresas de Externalización y Gestión de Envíos y Pequeña Paquetería

v

Entidad Pública Empresarial Correos y Telégrafos

and

Administración General del Estado

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo)

(Postal services – Directive 97/67/EC – Services reserved for the providers of the universal postal service – Definition of self-provision – Inclusion of money order services)

Summary of the Judgment

1. Freedom to provide services – Community postal services – Directive 97/67 – Services reserved for universal service providers – Exclusion of self-provision as defined by the directive – National legislation subjecting self-provision to additional conditions – Not permissible

(Directive 97/67 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Art. 7)

2. Freedom to provide services – Community postal services – Directive 97/67 – Scope – Money order services – Excluded – Option for Member States to regulate those services

(Directive 97/67 of the European Parliament and of the Council)

1. Article 7 of Directive 97/67 on the common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service, which sets out the different services which may be reserved for universal service providers, read in the light of recital 21 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not permit self-provision, which Member States are not entitled to reserve to universal service providers and which is defined by recital 21 as the ‘provision of postal services by the natural or legal person who is the originator of the mail, or collection and routing of these items by a third party acting solely on behalf of that person’, to be made subject to the following additional conditions:

– the receiver must be the same person as the sender;

– the services must not be provided to third parties in the course of commercial or business activity of the service provider;

– the services must not be provided by the mailbag system or other similar methods; and

– such operations must not disrupt the services reserved to the universal service provider.

If it is accepted that the Member States are free to impose additional conditions on the definition of self-provision, and thereby limit the situations which are covered by it, they would have the option of extending the services reserved for the universal service provider, which would go against the purpose of the directive.

(see paras 21, 23-26, operative part 1)

2. Money order services, which consist in making payments through the public postal network to natural or legal persons on behalf of and on the order of others, are not within the scope of Directive 97/67 on the common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service.

The fact that Article 7 of that directive, which sets out the different services which may be reserved for universal service providers, does not mention money orders among those services, is not decisive and the Member States therefore remain free to regulate the financial services which may be provided by the universal postal service providers.

(see paras 21, 33-34, operative part 2)