WRITTEN QUESTION E-2464/03 by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Pricing of basic postal services.
Date: 2003-07-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: competition, fixing of prices, harmonisation of standards, postal charges, postal service, provision of services, universal service

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/741

The Council is aware of the consequences of the implementation of the above US decision for the
2.
European countries mentioned by the Honourable MEP. NATO members will not be concerned, but six
future EU Member States (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Bulgaria), not expected to join
NATO before 2004, will see important funds withheld as of 1 October. These funds are meant to help
them prepare their nation’s militaries to be fully interoperable with NATO forces.

3.
The Council recalls that at every possible occasion (EU Common Positions, Guiding Principles and
different demarches carried out in third countries) it has reaffirmed its consistent and clear position on the
ASPA and on the bilateral non-surrender agreements. When approached by the US with proposals for
non-surrender agreements, Member States looked for a common EU approach to these proposals within
the Council. Since the very start of the process, the Council identified one clear political objective for this
common approach: the framework for any solution to accommodate US concerns must preserve the
integrity of the Rome Statute and should not undermine the ICC.

Particular reference should be made to the EU Guiding Principles annexed to the Council Conclusions of
30 September 2002. In the above Guiding Principles, the Council considered that entering into bilateral
agreements (cid:1) as presently drafted (cid:1) would be inconsistent with ICC States Parties’ obligations with regard
to the ICC Statute and may be inconsistent with other international agreements to which ICC States Parties
are parties. Furthermore, any solution should include appropriate operative provisions ensuring that
persons who have committed crimes falling within the jurisdiction of the Court do not enjoy impunity.
Such provisions should ensure appropriate investigation and (cid:1) where there is sufficient evidence (cid:1)
prosecution by national jurisdictions concerning persons requested by the ICC. In any case, any solution
should only cover persons who are not nationals of an ICC State Party. It should cover only persons
present on the territory of a requested State because they have been sent by a sending State; and surrender
cannot be deemed to include transit.

It is recalled that the ten acceding countries supported the EU Common Position of June 2003 and that the
associated countries (Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey) as well as the EFTA countries also aligned with it.

(2004/C 78 E/0790)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2464/03

by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 July 2003)

Subject: Pricing of basic postal services

European users are often paying unjustified high prices for basic postal services. In particular, this seems to
be the case in Germany, where a stamp costs more than twice its Spanish equivalent for consumers.
It appears that, even though Deutsche Post was obliged by the German Regulator to slightly reduce its
stamp price earlier this year (from EUR 0,56 to 0,55), the price charged by DPWN on a stamp for a basic
letter of 20 grams is still the highest in Western Europe, even taking into consideration elements such as
quality of service and population density.

In February 2000, the DVPT (Deutscher Verband für Post und Telekommunikation e.V.), the German
association for post and telecommunication, filed a complaint with the European Commission (Comp/
37 821) concerning the excessive prices used by Deutsche Post in the reserved letter mail area. DVPT
argued that Deutsche Post used its excessive prices in the reserved area to cross-subsidise other services
and referred to this as a breach of Article 82 of the Treaty (abuse of dominant position).

The Commission has in past years adopted important decisions to redress the abuses perpetrated by some
postal operators. Can the Commission explain what is the current status of the above-mentioned DVPT
case and what steps it intends to take in order to solve it?

C 78 E/742

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

Could the Commission indicate how it intends to ensure that the requirements of the Postal Directives and
the Postal Notice (Notice from the Commission on the application of the competition rules to the postal
sector and on the assessment of certain State measures relating to postal services (1)) as regards
transparency of accounts for the postal operators are respected, in particular with regard to the separation
of reserved and commercial activities?

Can the Commission indicate whether and how it intends to provide,
in addition to the provisions
contained in the Postal Directives and in the Postal Notice, detailed guidelines for the National Regulatory
Authorities (NRAs) on control of tariff levels, measurement of costs of universal service (if applicable) and
use of monopoly profits by the incumbents, including suggestions for applications for alternative methods
such as the returns on capital employed (ROCE) method?

(1) OJ C 39, 6.2.1998, p. 2.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2003)

the Commission is currently unable to disclose anything about

The Honourable Member’s first question concerns the current status of the Commission’s investigation of
the complaint filed by DVPT concerning certain postal tariffs charged by Deutsche Post AG in Germany (1).
Regrettably,
its
investigation, since it is still pending. However, the Commission would like to emphasise the fact that (cid:1)
as noted by the Honourable Member (cid:1) it is primarily the Member States themselves that have the
responsibility to ensure that postal tariffs charged by the monopoly operator are proportionate to the
actual costs incurred. The German regulator (cid:1) the Regulierungsbehörde für Telekommunikation und Post
(RegTP) (cid:1) has far-reaching powers under the German Postal Act to determine the level of postal tariffs
based on an analysis of the incumbent’s cost.

the outcome of

With regard to the respect of the Postal Directive’s provisions of transparency of accounts, national postal
regulatory authorities are primarily responsible for this obligation (Article 14.5 of Directive 97/67/EC (2)).
However, the Commission has addressed itself to a number of Member States during 2001 in order to be
reassured that
the applicable provisions were fully respected. Furthermore, a dedicated study was
conducted on behalf of the Commission to look into the details of the implementation and application
of the Directives’ transparency of accounts provisions by Member States (‘Study on the cost accounting
systems of providers of the universal postal service’, CtCon July 2001), which concluded that Article 14 of
Directive 97/67/EC was broadly implemented and applied.

The Commission considers that the effective application of the Directive’s provisions and competition rules
constitute so far an adequate basis for ensuring a proper separation between reserved and commercial
postal activities. However, due to the complexity of these issues, the Commission will remain attentive to
any possible developments in this area.

The Commission has not the intention at this point in time to provide detailed guidelines to the national
regulatory authorities on the issues suggested by the Honourable Member. An on-going monitoring of the
situation by the Commission and a periodic exchange of views and practices between national regulatory
authorities and the Commission already takes place on some of these issues at different occasions
(e.g. workshops and panels carried out in the preparation of studies, bilateral meetings). Furthermore, and
as stated above, the Commission has commissioned a number of studies which contain a comparison and
best practice recommendations in some of these areas and can be the basis for a harmonised improvement
of national practices (e.g. the abovementioned study on cost accounting; study on the impact of certain
aspects of the Application of Directive 97/67/EC, Omega Partners August 2001; study on costing and
financing of universal postal services, NERA October 1998).

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/743

The report on the application of the Directive that the Commission must present before the Parliament
and Council before the 31 December 2004 (Article 1.5 of Directive 2002/39/EC (3)) appears to be an
occasion that the Commission could use to propose further action, should this necessity be perceived.

(1) Case No COMP/37.821 (cid:1) Deutscher Verband für Post und Telekommunikation E.V./Deutsche Post AG.
(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.

(3) Directive 2002/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 amending Directive 97/67/

EC with regard to the further opening to competition of Community postal services, OJ L 176, 5.7.2002.

(2004/C 78 E/0791)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2485/03

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 July 2003)

Subject: Double taxation conventions and Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71

In practice, workers who are employed in more than one EU Member State, for example in international
road haulage, often find themselves the victims of unfavourable combinations of social insurance costs in
one country (where their employer is based) and levying of income tax in their country of residence for
days spent working outside the country where their employer is based. The regulation coordinating social
security schemes ((EEC) No 1408/71 (1)) and bilateral double taxation conventions do not mesh together
smoothly.

Do the allocation rules

1.
corresponding rules in the multilateral Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 or vice versa?

in bilateral double taxation conventions

take precedence over

the

Is it contrary to EU legislation if Member States agree allocation rules in a double taxation

2.
convention which deviate from the principles laid down in Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71?

3. What does the Commission consider to be the significance of consideration 32 in the recent
judgment in the case of Gottardo, C-55/00 (‘With regard to a bilateral
international treaty concluded
between a Member State and a non-member country for the avoidance of double taxation, the Court has
pointed out that, although direct taxation is a matter falling within the competence of the Member States
alone, the latter may not disregard Community rules but must exercise their powers in a manner
consistent with Community law (…)’)?

(1) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(11 September 2003)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the
Council (1) creates a system for co-ordinating national social security schemes of the Member States and
contains a series of provisions which determine the national legislation to apply in a given case. These
provisions aim to ensure that persons who have exercised their right to free movement are subject to the
legislation of only one Member State, i.e. the State of employment, and that, as a result, they must pay
social security contributions only in the Member State whose legislation is applicable.

As for the allocation rules in bilateral double taxation conventions,
in the absence of a Community
unifying or harmonising measure the Member States retain the power to lay down criteria for taxing
income and savings with a view to eliminating double taxation, if necessary by means of conventions. In
this respect, within the framework of bilateral conventions the Member States are free to define attachment
factors for the purposes of allocating tax jurisdiction.