WRITTEN QUESTION E-0586/02 by Jacqueline Foster (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Postal services.
Date: 2002-03-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, comparative analysis, competition, monopoly, postal charges, postal service, price disparity, provision of services, universal service

C 52 E/12

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2003

Without real competition between postal operators in the EU, it is impossible for consumers to assess
whether what they are paying for basic postal services is justifiable. The significant differences in letter
rates in the EU clearly indicate that consumers in certain Member States are being overcharged. Since the
Postal Directive sets out to provide EU citizens with postal services at affordable prices as one of its main
priorities, it appears that the EC is failing to achieve its aim.

Can the Commission explain what it is currently doing and what it intends to do in the future in order to
tackle the problem of letter rate differentials in the EU and the underlying causes of those differences in
order to ensure that consumers are not being overcharged?

(2003/C 52 E/014)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0586/02

by Jacqueline Foster (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 March 2002)

Subject: Postal services

The Commission has introduced an effective system to monitor price differentials in the EU car sector. DG
Competition regularly publishes studies that show the prices that consumers have to pay for the main car
makes and models in every Member State. These studies have become a useful and powerful instrument for
the Commission to fight breaches of the competition rules in the car sector and to promote changes of the
internal market rules. Differences in car prices in the EU currently vary between approximately 10 % and,
in extreme cases, up to 50 %.

In the EU postal sector, the differences in prices for similar postal services vary considerably. Consumers in
Germany pay 2,33 times the price that Spanish consumers pay for a similar, basic service. Whereas buyers
of cars can choose from multiple makes and supply channels, buyers of postal services are generally bound
to one supplier, the national monopoly. Therefore, the effectiveness of the EC’s efforts to ensure that
consumers are not overcharged is crucial for the functioning of the market.

It seems that regular studies of price differentials for basic postal services, and their causes, are needed in
order to ensure that consumers in the EU are not being overcharged, that EC competition rules are not
being breached and that the Commission can adequately tackle internal market distortions. Such data
would, for instance, help the Commission to determine whether the revenues from the postal operators’
monopolies were not being misused for purposes that lie outside the universal service obligation in ways
In addition, such data would increase the Commission’s
that are contrary to the Postal Directive.
understanding of the postal market with regard to future EC liberalisation measures.

Can the Commission intimate its view on the introduction of a monitoring system for the postal sector,
similar to the one used to monitor car prices and taking the characteristics of the postal market into
consideration?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-0585/02 and E-0586/02
given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2002)

As indicated in the answer to written question E-0584/02 by the Honourable Member, under the Postal
Directive (1), Member States are obliged to ensure that tariffs for postal services within the universal service
are ‘affordable’ and ‘geared to costs’. Overseeing the application of these requirements is primarily the
responsibility of the Member States.

In order to ensure compliance with these principles, the Commission continuously monitors the evolution
of postal tariffs in the Member States, and would intervene, if appropriate, either on the basis of the Postal
Directive or on the competition rules.

6.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52 E/13

Introducing a system for comparing postal tariffs across the Member States similar to the one that the
Commission currently maintains for car prices, does not seem to be warranted at present.

Since postal tariffs are regulated by the Member States themselves, price comparisons would reflect the
different regulatory approaches taken in the various Member States to a large extent. Price differences
the
resulting from administrative pricing decisions would neither provide any information about
competitive situation in various markets, nor disclose suspected breaches of the Community competition
rules. Considering the fact that, in most Member States the incumbent postal operators benefit from wide-
ranging postal monopolies, there is not yet a functioning internal market for postal services. A system of
price comparisons would therefore not make it any easier for the Commission to ‘tackle internal market
distorsions.’

In conclusion, the Commission considers that its current price monitoring system, and its action on
individual cases, are sufficient
the consumer is not
overcharged.

to ensure that prices are affordable and that

Finally, the Commission expects that the proposed legislative measures to increase competition in the
postal markets will gradually provide a downward pressure on postal tariffs and work towards a reduction
in price differences.

(1) 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.

(2003/C 52 E/015)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0591/02

by Jan Wiersma (PSE) to the Commission

(25 February 2002)

Subject: Interception of e-mails in Ankara

Can the Commission confirm that a series of e-mails from the EU delegation in Ankara has been
intercepted and published in a Turkish weekly magazine?

Has the Commission been able to establish how they were intercepted?

During the European Parliament’s inquiry into Echelon it was stated that the communications of the EU
delegations were to be made more secure. What progress has been made in carrying out this intention? Or
is this left to the Turkish authorities in the case in question?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2002)

The Commission confirms that e-mails from its Representation in Ankara have been illegally obtained. The
stolen information was published in a weekly magazine, in other media and diffused through the Internet.
Following a court injunction, copies of the magazine in question were seized by the Turkish authorities.
Furthermore, legal proceedings by the Public Prosecutor continue under the Turkish penal code. It should
be noted that the intrusion concerns only the Representation’s e-mail system, whereas the traffic of
encrypted classified documents was never affected.

The Commission has asked to investigate and to find out who carried out these illegal activities and to
prosecute those who committed this crime.

the Parliament’s resolution on Echelon,

On the basis of
the Commission has adopted a Secure
Communications Action Plan with a view to establishing a modernised and extended Cypher network
between Commission Headquarters and Commission Delegations worldwide. Concrete measures are under
preparation. The Commission will gradually introduce from 2003 onwards the upgraded Cypher system
and the related necessary physical security measures if the budgetary authorities provide the necessary
funding and staff. Meanwhile, appropriate steps have been taken to reinforce the security of
the
communications systems of the Ankara Representation.