WRITTEN QUESTION E-3523/00 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN), Mauro Nobilia (UEN), Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) and Guido Podestà (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Infringement proceedings against Italy for failure to transpose Directive 97/67/EC correctly.
Date: 2000-11-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Italy, Netherlands, application of EU law, control of State aid, postal service, universal service

C 174 E/70

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

19.6.2001

(2001/C 174 E/070)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3523/00

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN), Mauro Nobilia (UEN), Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) and Guido Podest(cid:224)
(PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 November 2000)

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

In its reply P-2132/00 (1) the Commission states that the infringement proceedings initiated against Italy
are intended to safeguard the open competition arrangements existing on the Italian postal services market
prior to the entry into force of Decree 261/99. However, the legal basis for the assertions made by the
Commission appears extremely shaky.

The distinction between products freely available on the open market and those which may be withdrawn
from that market within the bounds of what is necessary in order to ensure the provision of a universal
service at prices which all users can afford is based on an assessment of (cid:145)added value(cid:146), which is determined
with reference to the price-limit criterion. That criterion, which is referred to in the relevant Community
legislation and which has been adopted by all the Member States, has been completely overlooked by the
Commission.

1.

Does the Commission agree with the above assertion?

2. Would it not agree that the concept of (cid:145)special service(cid:146), which has not yet been incorporated into
Community law, has no place among the grounds for the infringement proceedings? Given that it only
appears in the proposal for a second directive, how can it be a criterion for judging whether the law has
been infringed? Can anyone be held liable for failure to comply with a requirement that does not yet exist?

Can the Commission provide information on the outcome of the investigation into the alleged state

3.
aid granted by the Netherlands to TPG?

(1) OJ C 81 E, 13.3.2001, p. 155.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(25 January 2001)

On 21 December 2000 the Commission has concluded the proceedings the Honourable Member refers to
by adopting a decision under Article 86(3) of
the
Commission concludes that the extension of the general letter mail monopoly, by means of Article 4(4)
of the Italian Decree 261/99, into the neighbouring and competitive market for guaranteed day or time-
certain deliveries offered as part of the hybrid electronic mail service, without any objective justification, is
prohibited as such by Article 86(1) in conjunction with Article 82 of the EC Treaty.

the EC Treaty (IP/00/1522).

In this Decision,

The Commission has been extremely careful to define the market for guaranteed day or time-certain
deliveries as precisely as possible. The Commission differentiates between conventional postal delivery
services and services that offer a guarantee as to the day or time on which the correspondence is delivered.
The conventional delivery service is governed by general delivery targets which never specify the exact day
or exact time of delivery. Guaranteed day or time-certain deliveries and the conventional delivery services
are thus not interchangeable. The added value of time or day certain deliveries may,
in principle, be
reflected in a price above the basic tariff. This does not, however, imply that the service must be sold at a
minimum price that is five times above the basic tariff.

There is no objective justification for applying the monopoly price threshold to this service. Competition
with respect to time or day certain deliveries does not jeopardise the public postal operators financial
equilibrium. As the public postal operator does not at present provide day or time-certain deliveries, it will
not suffer any loss of revenue, which it would have otherwise gained on this market. In addition, demand
for the service is highly specialised. The revenue to be gained from delivering time-sensitive mailings
exactly on a pre-arranged day or time is small when compared with the investment necessary in order to
organise such deliveries. Furthermore, time-sensitive deliveries are a new service which creates additional
(reserved)
mail volume. Therefore,

they do not replace or attract away demand from conventional

19.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 174 E/71

deliveries and consequently will not reduce the conventional mail volume and the revenue generated by
the public postal operator in the reserved area. The Commission thinks that its Decision strikes the
appropriate balance between the need to ensure the financial equilibrium of the public postal operator on
the one hand and the need of Italian businesses for time sensitive mailings on the other hand.

The Decision of 21 December is concerned exclusively with the application of the competition rules and
not about the Postal Directive. The Decision addresses particular competition issues raised by the Italian
Decree 261/99. Without prejudice to the political discussions in the Parliament and Council on a new
Postal Directive, the Commission is under a duty to take all action which it considers necessary in order to
safeguard the competition rules (see, e.g., Case T-266/97 Vlaamse Televisie Maatschappij NV, at paragraph
75).

The Commission has started an informal investigation by addressing a request for information to the
Dutch authorities. The Dutch authorities replied by providing the requested information. The Commission
is currently examining the information received, with particular reference to the economic result achieved
in the reserved area and to the extra costs related to the provision of the universal service.

(2001/C 174 E/071)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3529/00

by Andre Brie (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(13 November 2000)

Subject: Deaths and murders of illegal immigrants in southern Italy

Dead illegal immigrants dumped by roadside

The bodies of six illegal immigrants, presumably Kurds, have been dumped by the roadside in southern
Italy. It is assumed that they died of asphyxiation and that the smuggler decided to get rid of his morbid
cargo. The head of one of the dead had been squashed, as if the lorry had run over it. This is only the
latest in a long series of deaths and murders which occur weekly in southern Italy, the main conduit from
Albania and Montenegro of illegal immigration to northern and western Europe.

With reference to the above report in the Italian newspaper La Repubblica of 18 October 2000, and in
view of the fact that the number of people who have died at the EU(cid:146)s external borders has risen since the
start of the 1990s; given, moreover, that the majority of EU Member States are making increasing efforts
(from a financial and technical point of view) to protect borders:

(cid:129) Can the Council confirm this and similar reports, and what is its own assessment of such occurrences?

(cid:129) How many investigations into deaths have been instituted in this connection, and what has been their

outcome?

(cid:129) What concrete measures does the Council intend to take in order to prevent more and more people

dying as they attempt, perhaps illegally, to enter the European Union?

Reply

(8 March 2001)

The Council has no information or statistics which would allow it to reply to the questions put by
1.
the Honourable Member. It also draws the Honourable Member(cid:146)s attention to the fact that the investiga-
tions into the events which he mentions, the prosecution of those responsible for criminal acts committed
in such circumstances and the adoption of preventive measures are matters falling within the competence
of the Member States.

2.
As regards the measures which it has taken and is continuing to take in the fight against illegal
immigration, the Council would refer the Honourable Member to its reply to Written Question P-1391/00
put by Mr Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou.