WRITTEN QUESTION E-3256/00 by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Revision of the postal directive ‐ special services.
Date: 2000-10-20
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: competition law, interpretation of the law, postal service, universal service

C 136 E/214

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.5.2001

However, the Commission fails to make it clear how the compensation fund will operate, whereas in the
telecommunications sector, for example, detailed guidelines were set out in the proposals for directives.

Can the Commission say what factors support the idea of setting up a compensation fund? How will

1.
the fund operate and how will it be financed in the long term?

2. Will the setting up of a compensation fund be sufficient to ensure the quality of the postal service in
rural or sparsely-populated areas?

3. Will the creation of this fund guarantee equal access to the postal service for all users, not least in
terms of price?

Reply given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2000)

The compensation fund is one of the additional means provided for by Directive 97/67/EC of the
1.
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 the quality of service (1) which the Member
States may use for funding the universal service. The analytical elements providing support for this idea are
based on the fact that the cost accounting provided for under this directive should allow costs to be made
transparent.

Five Member States have made provision for a compensation fund in their legislation without putting it
into practice, however. The Commission will examine the details of these measures as state aid from the
point of view of the competition rules. On the basis of this analysis, the Commission could, depending on
the case, propose further principles to be applied to this compensation fund as happened in the
telecommunications sector.

However, it would not be right to perform a theoretical study of the operation of a compensation fund
now since Directive 97/67/EC has already indicated the parameters for such action (Article 9).

2.
The current directive establishes the universal service as a minimum to be provided in each Member
State. The activation of a compensation fund to ensure the operation of the universal service will probably
not be necessary in most cases since the draft directive of the Parliament and of the Council amending
Directive 97/67/EC, regarding the opening-up to competition of the Community(cid:146)s postal services, allows
for the possibility of 50 % of the postal receipts of those providing the universal service continuing to be
reserved if necessary.

Yes. The combination of one or more means provided by the directive for ensuring the universal
licence conditions, tariffs geared to costs, compensation funds) will allow a

3.
service (reserved service,
guarantee to be made that all users will have equal access to the postal service.

(1) OJ L 15, 21.1.1998.

(2001/C 136 E/251)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3256/00

by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Revision of the postal directive (cid:129) special services

(20 October 2000)

The Commission(cid:146)s new proposals make a distinction between standard or basic services, which would be
part of the universal service, and special services, a new category defined as services with an added value
that are not universal and hence cannot be reserved.

1.
Does the Commission not consider that these measures call into question the principle that the
universal service must be adaptable to technological change and clients(cid:146) needs, a principle that was
recognised by Article 5 of the 1997 Directive?

8.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 136 E/215

Is there not a danger that these new regulations will create greater legal uncertainty given that the
2.
definition of special services is unclear, and might allow any services included in the universal service to be
excluded from the universal service whenever it has additional service features.

In its judgment in the Corbeau case, the Court of Justice of the European Communities held that if
3.
competition in the provision of added value would compromise the financial equilibrium of the universal
service providers, the national authorities could legally include such services within the reserved area of
services. Can the Commission explain why the proposal for a directive disregards this point, which is
crucial to ensuring the viability of universal service providers?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2000)

No. The adaptability of the universal service would not be affected by this measure. The proposal for

1.
a Directive involves the reserved sector and does not change any part of the universal service.

The distinction between (cid:145)standard(cid:146) and (cid:145)special(cid:146) services has already been made (recital 21, read in
conjunction with Article 7 of 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 (1)).

2.
No. For a service to be considered a special service, it must fulfil the following three criteria: it must
fall outside the scope of the universal service (as defined by each Member State); it must meet the specific
needs of economic operators; and it must have at least two additional services not offered by the
traditional postal service. The compulsory services which form part of the universal service are defined in
detail by each Member State.

The Corbeau judgment applies in the absence of harmonised rules: Directive 97/67/EC lays down a
3.
maximum area for the reserved sector and other measures which the Member States can use to ensure the
provision of the universal service.

(1) OJ L 15, 21.1.1998.

(2001/C 136 E/252)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3258/00

by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Revision of the postal directive (cid:129) price increases

(20 October 2000)

Sweden is often cited as a evidence that, taken as a whole, the impact of liberalisation of the postal market
has been positive.

However, if one looks at the trend in the prices paid by Swedish consumers, one finds that there has been
a significant increase since 1993:

(cid:129) prices rose by 25 % between 1993 and 1995,

(cid:129) by 6 % in 1996,

(cid:129) by 30 % in 1997.

Can the Commission confirm that it will give priority to competition even at the expense of maintaining a
quality service at a price that is affordable for all?