WRITTEN QUESTION E-2658/00 by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE), Guido Podestà (PPE-DE), Giuseppe Gargani (PPE-DE) and Renato Brunetta (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Infringement proceedings against Italy for failure to transpose Directive 97/67/EC.
Date: 2000-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Italy, Netherlands, State aid, State monopoly, competition law, free competition, infringement procedure (EU), liberalisation of the market, national implementing measure, postal service, universal service

C 136 E/70

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.5.2001

Is there a ban on the import of cat and dog skins?

If so, what law is that ban based on and how are the relevant checks organised?

If not, are checks carried out to determine whether skins are falsely or misleadingly labelled?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(13 October 2000)

In the Community a comprehensive set of legislation exists that covers a wide range of issues relating to
animal welfare within its borders. However, given that trade in cat or dog skins is not forbidden under the
CITES Convention (1), there is no ban in the Community on the import of such products.

When hides and skins are imported into the Community, customs officials usually carry out visual checks
in order to verify whether the information provided on labels, if any, corresponds to reality. The purpose
of those checks is twofold: to verify whether those products fall under the CITES Convention, and to
ensure the correct customs classification with a view to establishing the appropriate customs tariff.

(1) Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.

(2001/C 136 E/077)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2658/00

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE), Guido Podest(cid:224) (PPE-DE),
Giuseppe Gargani (PPE-DE) and Renato Brunetta (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Infringement proceedings against Italy for failure to transpose Directive 97/67/EC

Following a complaint by the Dutch public postal service provider TNT Post Group (TPG), the Commission
Directorate-General for Competition has instituted infringement proceedings against Italy under Article
86(3) of the Treaty. The proceedings relate to incorrect transposition of Directive 97/67/EC (1) and are
designed to undermine the economic foundations of the universal postal service in Italy. In other words,
they are seeking to produce the same effects as the Commission(cid:146)s proposal for a second directive, which
has not yet been considered in Parliament.

Two and a half years after it was issued, the Netherlands has still not transposed Directive 97/67/EC, and
the area of operations reserved for TPG under Dutch law continues to exceed the scope of the actual
coverage requirements that the universal service has to satisfy. Backed by public money, TPG is pursuing a
strategy of expansion, especially in Italy.

The Commission proposal for a directive meets the wishes of the Dutch Government in that it will
liberalise the postal service in a way directly favourable to the Dutch service provider, as can be inferred
from a document which the Advisory Committee on Transport, Public Works, and Waters has submitted
to the State Secretary.

The resulting situation appears something of a paradox, working entirely to the benefit of TPG by creating
unequal competition in which the public service provider, bound by the constraints of the universal
service, has to bear the costs of that service, whereas the private provider can (cid:145)cream off(cid:146) the market and
choose the richest and most prized demand segments according to market considerations.

Will the Commission therefore:

(cid:129) ascertain the truth of the points set out above;

(cid:129) say why it is anxious to rush ahead with liberalisation specifically in Italy, where TPG today is already

generating a third of the turnover of (cid:145)Poste Italiane(cid:146);

8.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 136 E/71

(cid:129) say why it believes that services regarded as universal and reserved for the public provider in other

Member States should be liberalised in Italy;

(cid:129) say why it has chosen to proceed under Article 86(3) of the Treaty instead of the former Article 226,
which allows the Member State concerned and the Commission to discuss a matter in dispute, bearing
in mind that this latter procedure has been employed in cases relating to similar subjects involving
other Member States;

(cid:129) ascertain whether the decisions being taken in relation to Italy might unjustifiably restrict the rights of

Italian citizens compared to other European citizens;

(cid:129) say whether it will

institute proceedings against the Netherlands with a view to recovering the

systematic subsidies wrongfully granted to TNT Post Group (TPG)?

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

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 2000)

The infringement proceedings against Italy for violation of Article 86 (ex Article 90) in connection with
Article 82 (ex Article 86) of the EC Treaty concern the extension of the general letter mail monopoly to
include a series of special value-added delivery services provided by private operators in Italy. The
Commission decided to launch infringement proceedings after it had received several complaints by small
and medium size private operators active in providing value-added postal services in Italy in a system of
open competition. While it is true that TNT Postal Group also lodged a complaint, the thrust of the
current proceedings is to ensure that new or value-added services, previously provided by these small and
medium sized Italian operators under a regime of open competition, are not included in the general letter
mail monopoly, reserved to only one provider, the incumbent. Needless to say, the Commission,
in
launching the proceedings, acted to safeguard this regime of open competition in Italy and not to further
the commercial interest of one particular postal operator.

The proceedings against Italy do not aim to anticipate further liberalisation of the Italian postal market but
to maintain the competitive marketplace existing in Italy prior to the entry into force of Decree No 261/
99. They do not seek to liberalise, but to enforce the rules on competition as contained in Articles 81
(ex Article 85) seq. of the EC Treaty. According to Article 82 of the EC Treaty an abuse within the
meaning of this Article is committed where, without any objective necessity, an undertaking holding a
dominant position on a particular market reserves to itself other activities in separate and neighbouring
markets, although these activities could also be carried out by another undertaking as part of its activities
on this separate and neighbouring market (1). Where the extension of a dominant position of a public
undertaking or undertaking to which the state has granted special or exclusive rights results from a state
measure, such a measure, if not justified under Article 86.2, may constitute an infringement of Article 86
in conjunction with Article 82 of the EC Treaty. Under these circumstances it is appropriate for the
Commission to launch proceedings under Article 86(3) of the Treaty which states: (cid:145)The Commission shall
ensure the application of the provisions of this Article (Article 86) and shall, where necessary, address
appropriate directives or decisions to Member States(cid:146).

The Commission(cid:146)s investigation under the EC Treaty rules of competition into several complaints lodged
against Italian Decree No 261/99, reveals that this, for all practical purposes, extends the scope of the
postal monopoly in favour of the incumbent for a series of special value-added services. These special
services were previously provided by private operators in competition with the incumbent. The value-
added special services at issue comprise special features, such as i) several attempts at delivery, ii) delivery
iv) delivery on special
at several alternative destinations,
appointment, or v) keeping and updating of mailing lists.

iii) tracking and tracing throughout transit,

The Commission has taken the preliminary view that the exception provided by Article 86.2 of the
EC Treaty interpreted in the light of the 1997 Postal Directive (2), could not justify such an extension. The
Directive indicates that services which do not form part of the universal service cannot be reserved to the
universal service provider. Therefore, the proceedings at stake do not aim to liberalise these services but to
maintain the competitive situation in Italy prior to the entry into force of Decree No 261/99. In any event,
the Commission, at this stage, is analysing the reply of the Italian government to the letter of formal notice
as well as the observations by the Italian Post.

C 136 E/72

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.5.2001

The present proceedings do not discriminate against Italy vis-(cid:224)-vis other Member States, since the same
approach would be adopted also with regard to the incumbent of other Member States.

The infringement proceedings in no way harm the rights of Italian citizens to benefit from a universal
postal service or disadvantage the Italian consumer as compared to consumers in other Member States. Far
from reducing the amount of postal service available in those Member States, the Commission(cid:146)s proceed-
ings aim to safeguard the widest possible choice for consumers to request new and value-added services
from private operators or from the incumbent. Indeed, the Commission(cid:146)s intervention in the postal sector
has never resulted in a reduction of available services but has resulted in maintaining or increasing
competition and consequently the consumer(cid:146)s choice of postal services.

As to the choice of Article 86.3 of the EC Treaty for the proceedings,
it is to be recalled that the
proceedings concern the possible infringement of the competition rules by the Italian state and not the
non-conformity of the Italian legislation with the 1997 Postal Directive.

As regards the alleged state aid granted by the Netherlands to TPG, the Commission has started an
investigation on the subject, by addressing a request of
information to the Dutch authorities. The
authorities have replied, providing the requested information. The Commission is, at present, analysing
the information received. At this stage, the Commission can not prejudge the outcome of the investigation.

(1) See Case 311/84 CBEM [1985] ECR 3261.
(2) Directive 97/67/EC of the 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 (OJ L
15, 21.1.1998) at recital 21:
from conventional services) and
document exchange do not form part of the universal service and consequently there is no justification for their
being reserved to the universal service provide(cid:146).

(cid:145)whereas new services (services quite distinct

(2001/C 136 E/078)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2663/00

by Christos Zacharakis (PPE-DE)
and Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Arrest of representatives of the press by Turkish forces in the occupied territory of Cyprus

The editor-in-chief of the newspaper (cid:145)Avrupa(cid:146), Sener Levent, and the journalists Ali Osman and Harun
Denizkan, along with other members of the newspaper(cid:146)s staff, were arrested on charges of espionage on
7 July 2000 and subsequently interrogated by the authorities of the Turkish Cypriot pseudo-state and the
Turkish forces occupying northern Cyprus. These spurious and defamatory accusations, which have also
been made against the Cyprus Writers(cid:146) Union and in particular against its chairman, Andreas Kannaouros,
constitute a flagrant violation of fundamental freedoms with the aim of intimidating journalists, curbing
freedom of expression in the occupied part of Cyprus and, more specifically, compelling Mr Kannaouros to
abandon his fight for press freedom and silencing the newspaper (cid:145)Avrupa(cid:146) and its journalists.

1. What steps has the Commission taken and what measures will it adopt in the face of this flagrant
violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms?

2.
On the basis of the conclusions of the Helsinki Summit and the strict application of the Copenhagen
criteria with regard to respect for human rights in the applicant countries, is it possible for Turkey to open
pre-accession negotiations with the EU while it commits such acts?

3.
Given that relations between the EU and Turkey are governed by respect for democratic principles,
the rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms, and that their progress has been made subject to
the fulfilment of these conditions, can the EU continue to deepen relations with Turkey if Turkey does not
comply with these principles?