WRITTEN QUESTION E-1255/98

by Leonie van Bladel (UPE) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Damage to small and medium-sized businesses as a result of the Netherlands and European postal authorities' abuse of their monopoly position

1. Small and medium-sized businesses face constant problems because of the postal authorities' abuse of their monopoly position. In several places in the Netherlands activities other than postal services covered by the monopoly, including foreign exchange operations and the issue of registration certificates, are carried out at the post office counters used for postal services. This is a serious problem for small and medium-sized businesses. Waiting times for a standard parcel may be more than 20 minutes during the peak period from 4 to 6 p.m. The manager of postal services in the Hague, W. van den Berg, does not consider this disturbing. However it means a considerable loss to small and medium-sized businesses. Is the Commission prepared to draw up guidelines to prohibit European postal authorities from abusing their monopoly position.

2. How can the monopoly of the European postal authorities be broken in the interests of small and medium-sized businesses and employment?

3. Is the Commission prepared to draw up guidelines to prohibit European postal authorities from combining commercial interests, including foreign exchange operations, which compete with commercial banks, and monopoly postal services, such as acceptance and dispatch of mail, at the same counters?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(12 June 1998)

1. The Community's public postal authorities provide a full range of services, some of them under monopoly conditions and others in competition. Those authorities are required to provide a universal comprehensive service, and in return they generally have exclusive rights to certain services. Where a postal-service provider occupies a dominant position (or more especially, a monopoly position) on a market Article 86 of the EC Treaty applies if that position is abused. In its communication on applying the competition rules to postal services and on assessing certain State measures applying to postal services,(1) the Commission set out in detail the obligations arising from that Article and applying to postal service providers occupying a dominant position.

This question concerns how long one has to wait in order to collect a parcel from a post office. The time spent waiting at a counter, which is a measure of service-quality, is a major customer-satisfaction index, more particularly as regards small and medium-sized businesses (SMBs). Some postal authorities, moreover, keep their counters for SMBs completely separate from the counters for private customers in order better to meet their expectations.

It must be pointed out that parcels delivery is not a monopoly activity. Therefore an SMB can thus use various competing service providers.

2. In Parliament and Council Directive 97/67/EC of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market for Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service(2) the Commission moved towards liberalising the postal sector by limiting the scope of the services which a Member State may earmark for a single service provider. Furthermore the Commission must put forward a proposal on further liberalisation before the end of this year.

It should also be stated that Article 90, paragraph 3 of the EC Treaty applies to this area. This requires the Commission to ensure that Member States neither take nor continue any action that does not obey the rules set out in the EC Treaty in respect of any public bodies or of bodies to which they grant special or exclusive rights. Where so needed the Commission may send the appropriate directives or decisions to the Member States.

3. If Community postal service providers combine activities for which they hold a monopoly with other activities which are subject to the free forces of competition this does not conflict with Community law. However, any such combination entails a risk that certain activities exposed to competition are improperly subsidised from the revenues arising from a protected monopoly. Such an instance could infringe Article 86, Article 92 or Articles 86 and 90, paragraph 1 of the EC Treaty, as explained by the Commission in its communication.

(1) OJ C 39, 6.2.1998.

(2) OJ L 15, 21.1.1998.