WRITTEN QUESTION P-1723/00 by Mauro Nobilia (UEN) to the Commission. Proposed amendment of Directive 97/67/EC of 15 December 1997.
Date: 2000-05-20
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: common commercial policy, liberalisation of the market, postal service

20.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 53 E/179

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(30 June 2000)

The survey referred to by the Honourable Member has indeed shown that there have been disparities
among the safety levels displayed by road tunnels in Europe, more particularly where there have been
conflagrations. This is mainly due to the state of technology applying when tunnels are placed in service
and to changes in traffic conditions. This means that the most recent tunnels generally embody a higher
level of safety.

It is first of all the responsibility of the authorities involved, the main customers or the concession holders
to take action enabling a sufficiently high level of safety to be ensured in tunnels. That action may take the
form of technical modifications to structures or safety equipment, the application of traffic-management
rules that are intended to reduce exposure to hazards, or of provisions intended to make emergency action
easier in the event of an accident.

Very long road tunnels differ too widely as regards their geometry, location and age for anyone to be able
to apply a traditional standardised approach.

However, their safety must constantly be reassessed in order to be able to apply innovations and technical
progress. The Commission would like to prompt the devising of a harmonised method for that purpose.

the international bodies such as the Organisation for Economic
It also supports the activities of
Cooperation and Development or the World Roads Association that is intended to improve tunnel safety
by pooling the experience gained by their members and listing the various techniques and procedures. The
Commission does not intend to duplicate or repeat those activities.

Finally, as part of the 5th Research Programme, the Commission has also called for proposals to improve
the techniques to reduce the likelihood and consequences of accidents in tunnels. The search for specific
technologies should, in particular, concentrate on improving systems to contain or extinguish incipient
conflagrations, but above all to prevent these.

(2001/C 53 E/234)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1723/00

by Mauro Nobilia (UEN) to the Commission

(20 May 2000)

Subject: Proposed amendment of Directive 97/67/EC of 15 December 1997

The proposal to amend Directive 97/67/EC (1) which is currently being discussed would entail substantial
reductions in weight/price limits and the total liberalisation of direct advertising and outgoing cross-border
mail while introducing the concept of (cid:145)special services(cid:146), which would include the delivery of normal mail
generated by means of the new technologies.

The charges made for universal postal services vary greatly from one Member State to another, partly for
structural reasons, and the proposal in question would threaten some systems(cid:146) capacity to sustain the
burden of providing a universal service, with the result that in countries such as Italy it would be
necessary,
for structural reasons, to provide some form of compensation at the expense of private
operators and/or the general taxpayer.

This being so:

(cid:129) To what extent has the Commission taken account of the European Parliament(cid:146)s resolutions (of
14 January 1999 and 18 February 2000) with regard to the need to produce the feasibility and
sustainability studies on which the liberalisation proposals are based and consult the various universal
service providers to consider the implications of the proposals under discussion?

(cid:129) Is the Commission aware that these proposals will favour the stronger Member States, which were
already at an advantage in structural terms when the first directive was issued and have been pursuing
a strategy of expansion for years, to the detriment of weaker Member States?

C 53 E/180

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.2.2001

(cid:129) Has Sweden(cid:146)s liberalisation of its postal services had positive effects on employment, prices and the

budget?

(cid:129) Has the Commission assessed in detail the varying implications of the proposed amendment of
Directive 97/67/EC for individual Member States, and in particular Italy, which is making enormous
efforts to maintain quality and output in the context of a general capping of costs, and will be severely
and adversely affected by such a drastic liberalisation and its not altogether foreseeable consequences,
which include (cid:129) in other countries as well as Italy (cid:129) the very real possibility of completely
unacceptable social and employment implications?

(cid:129) Has the Commission considered that the vagueness of the concept of (cid:145)special services(cid:146) could result in a
sharp reduction in the postal services(cid:146) reserved areas, with up to 80 % of the market being liberalised,
and a serious breach of the principle of ensuring proportionality between the obligation to provide a
universal service and the means used to attain that objective, thus placing at risk the economic
sustainability of any such requirement?

(1) OJ L 15, 21.1.1998, p. 14.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(23 June 2000)

The aim of the proposal to revise 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, recently adopted by the Commission, is to pursue the
gradual and controlled liberalisation of the market in postal services, as provided for in Article 7(3) of the
Directive. This proposal is based on a number of impact studies carried out following a Commission
initiative, and on information received by the Commission from the parties involved,
in particular
universal service providers. Throughout the process, the Commission gave every consideration to the
opinions expressed by the Members of the European Parliament, and in particular to the resolutions of
14 January 1999 and 18 February 2000.

In 1997, Directive 97/67/EC had already considered added-value services, referred to as (cid:145)new services(cid:146)
((cid:145)services quite distinct from conventional services(cid:146)), to be separate from universal service and something
which therefore could not be reserved for the universal service providers. By defining (cid:145)special services(cid:146) in
its proposal to amend this Directive, the Commission wished to clarify the general concept of added-value
services and,
in doing so, give it greater legal security. The Commission proposal therefore does not
change the arrangements for providing these services; for quite some time these have had to involve a
system of open competition.

In its approach to the postal sector, the Commission gives careful consideration to each Member State(cid:146)s
circumstances and, on the basis of the principle of subsidiarity, leaves it to the Member State to decide to
implement a system which allows universal service to be maintained. To this end, and in accordance with
the text adopted by the European Parliament and the Council, Directive 97/67/EC allows Member States to
ensure that universal service is maintained, in particular by means of a reserved service which suits their
needs and can be supplemented by a compensation fund linked to the licensing system. The proposal to
revise the Directive does not change this system.

As stipulated in Directive 97/67/EC, the process of liberalisation of the postal market is gradual and
controlled, which allows each Member State to adapt accordingly as the Community framework develops.

The expansion strategies pursued by some postal operators affect mainly those segments which have been
open to competition for several years, and are essentially based on the need to adapt the postal sector to
suit the new economic order.