WRITTEN QUESTION E-1410/02 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Distortion of competition on the internal market due to unlawful State aid.
Date: 2002-05-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: State aid, distance selling, electronic commerce, liberalisation of the market, post office financial services, postal service, restriction on competition, tariff preference

C 192 E/4

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

14.8.2003

During discussions in the Council on the Commission proposal for a Framework Decision on the sexual
exploitation of children and child pornography (2),
the
minimum rules on jurisdiction ensure that at least one Member State will always have jurisdiction to
prosecute child pornography on the Internet where material was posted from, or posted to, the territory of
a Member State. The Commission has adopted the same approach in its proposal for a Framework
Decision on racism and xenophobia (3). The Commission has not proposed in these instruments that such
conduct should be considered as occurring exclusively in a particular Member State. Nevertheless, the issue
of exclusive jurisdictional rules will be addressed by the Commission later this year in its Communication
on jurisdiction the context of mutual recognition of judicial decisions in criminal matters.

the Commission has sought

to ensure that

It has to be noted, that the analysis of jurisdictional issues provided in this answer only applies in the
context of the European arrest warrant, and that the situation is different in civil law cases.

(1) Based on the commission proposal, which is published in OJ C 332 E, 27.11.2001.
(2) OJ C 62 E, 27.2.2001.
(3) OJ C 75 E, 26.3.2002.

(2003/C 192 E/004)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1410/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 May 2002)

Subject: Distortion of competition on the internal market due to unlawful State aid

Now that the European market for postal services has been liberalised to a somewhat greater extent and
the monopoly is being further restricted, the problems with post offices cross-subsidising commercial
operations with revenue derived from their monopoly, traditional operators abusing their dominant
positions, etc., ought to be a thing of the past. Yet, despite the relevant European directives, it seems that it
is still not clear what is lawful and what is not.

The Belgian Post Group is increasingly devoting its attention to commercial operations. It may be queried
not only whether they yield any profit but also how they are financed.

The same is true of ABX, the logistics branch of the Belgian railways, NMBS/SNCB. This parcel delivery
service is making a loss and forms part of NMBS/SNCB. On 22 February 2002, the Belgian government
again granted it a loan of EUR 50 million from that government agency.

A case in which the German Post Office is accused of illegally receiving State aid, which will undoubtedly
be of relevance to the above Belgian operators as a precedent, has been dragging on for years without any
decision being reached.

1. What is the Commission’s view of these developments on the ground, which ultimately thwart the
Commission’s desire to bring about a single market?

2. What will the Commission do in the near future with regard to these very specific cases?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(2 July 2002)

As progress in opening postal monopolies will indeed come at a gradual pace, the period ahead will be
marked by the co-existence of services covered by the postal monopoly and services open to competition.
In these circumstances the Commission intends to remain extremely vigilant
the incumbent
beneficiaries of the monopoly do not exploit the monopoly resources or other State resources at their
disposal to leverage their dominance into markets open to competition.

that

Within the last two years, the Commission has proven its vigilance. This is necessary because the interests
of consumers and European industry require modern and competitive postal services. Electronic commerce
cannot develop in Europe without a highly performing postal delivery.

14.8.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 192 E/5

Therefore, between December 2000 and June 2002 the Commission has adopted a total of six decisions in
the postal sector:

(cid:1) in December 2000, the Commission adopted a Decision against Italy which confirms that innovative
like time-certain hybrid electronic mail services, may not be included in the postal

new services,
monopoly. With respect to such new services, there should be open competition on the merits;

(cid:1) in March 2001, the Commission imposed a fine on Deutsche Post for AG (DPAG) abusing its
dominant position by granting fidelity rebates to almost the entire German mail order industry. The
Commission also established the rule, that revenues from the monopoly should not be used to finance
a predatory pricing policy in markets open to competition;

(cid:1) in July 2001,

to DPAG setting forth the
circumstances under which the beneficiary of a postal monopoly may not levy the domestic tariff on
incoming cross-border mail;

the Commission adopted a decision with respect

(cid:1) in October 2001, a decision against France demonstrated our ongoing concern that there must be
adequate and independent regulatory supervision by the Government vis-à-vis the beneficiary of the
postal monopoly;

(cid:1) in December 2001, the Commission adopted a decision holding that the Belgian postal operator La
Poste infringed Article 82 of the EC Treaty by making a preferential tariff on the monopoly letter mail
subject to the acceptance of a supplementary contract covering a new business to business (‘B2B’) mail
service. The B2B service competes with the competitive ‘document exchange’ B2B service provided by
private undertakings;

(cid:1) finally, in June 2002, the Commission concluded its State aid investigation into DPAG and found that
the latter used EUR 572 million of State resources received to finance its public service mission to
sustain a five year period of selling below cost in its door-to-door parcel activities, which are open to
competition. The Commission found that this policy of below-cost sales cannot be linked to any
public service mission entrusted on DPAG. Therefore it decided that this loss of EUR 572 million
constitutes incompatible aid, which has to be recovered.

All of these decisions make it clear that the Commission will not accept that postal incumbents exploit the
resources of their monopoly in order to eliminate competitors active in those postal markets that are open
to competition. They should serve as useful precedents and thereby give guidance to public postal
operators as to the Commission’s policy goal to protect competition in those competitive postal markets
distinct from but neighbouring the postal monopoly.

(2003/C 192 E/005)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1490/02

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(22 May 2002)

Subject: Delays in the forwarding of documents (MED case)

Pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) on public access to documents, the Commission
has a period of 15 working days in which to take a decision on requests for documents.

In my Written Question E-2043/01 (2) on 13 July 2001, I asked for a copy of the letter (including all the
annexes) in which what is known as the MED Case was referred to the Belgian legal authorities (letter
No 008035 from the Director of the European Anti-Fraud Office, OLAF, to the Belgian State Prosecutor,
Mr Dejemeppe).

I repeated my request for the document to be forwarded to me in my Written Questions P-2784/01 (3) of
26 September 2001 and E-3632/01 (4) of 17 December 2001.

Since then, some 200 working days have elapsed, and the Commissioner with special responsibility for the
fight against fraud has still not forwarded to me the document that I requested.

Can the Commission forward to me forthwith the document that I requested?