REGULATORY SCRUTINY BOARD OPINION REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the application of the Postal Services Directive (Directive 97/67/EC as amended by Directive 2002/39/EC and 2008/6/EC)
Date: 2021-03-19
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: EU competition policy, application of EU law, digitisation, electronic commerce, freight rate, innovation, postal service, provision of services, single market, technological change, universal service

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 19.3.2021 
SEC(2021) 388 final 

 REGULATORY SCRUTINY BOARD OPINION 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

AND THE COUNCIL on the application of the Postal Services Directive (Directive 
97/67/EC as amended by Directive 2002/39/EC and 2008/6/EC) 

{SWD(2021) 309 final } 
{SWD(2021) 310 final } 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Regulatory Scrutiny Board 

Brussels,  
RSB 

Opinion 

Title: Evaluation of the common rules for the development of the internal market of 
Community postal services  

Overall opinion: POSITIVE 

(A) Policy context 

The  Postal  Services  Directive  has  progressively  opened  up  all  postal  activities  to 
competition.  It  did  this  while  safeguarding  the  provision  of  an  EU-wide  universal  postal 
service. It dates from 1997 and was revised in 2002 and 2008. 

The  Commission  reports  on  the  application  of  the  Directive  every  four  years.  The  next 
report  will  be  accompanied  by  an  evaluation.  This  will  take  account  of  the  significant 
changes in the postal market resulting from digitalisation and e-commerce. 

The  evaluation  examines  the  performance  of  the  Directive.  It  assesses  if  it  guarantees 
affordable,  high-quality  universal  postal  service  to  all  users  and  a  well-functioning  and 
competitive internal market. 

(B) Summary of findings 

The  Board  notes  the  useful  additional  information  provided  in  advance  of  the 
meeting and commitments to make changes to the report. 

The Board gives a positive opinion. The Board also considers that the report should 
further improve with respect to the following aspects:  

(1)  The  report  does  not  provide  a  clear  overview  of  what  was  expected  to  happen 

between the revision of 2008 and now. 

(2)  The  report  lacks  credible  evidence  on  the  needs  and  degree  of  satisfaction  of 
users  of  postal  services.  The  evidence  on  how  the  Directive  and  changes  in 
demand affected network economies and costs of service providers is incomplete. 

(3)  The  report  does  not  analyse  sufficiently  the  reasons  behind  the  limited 

improvement in competition. 

  ________________________________   

This opinion concerns a draft evaluation which may differ from the final version. 

Commission européenne, B-1049 Bruxelles - Belgium. Office: BERL 08/010. E-mail: regulatory-scrutiny-board@ec.europa.eu 

 
 
 
 
 
(C) What to improve 

(1)  The report provides relevant information on the outcomes of the Directive. However, 
the  report  should  better  explain  what  was  expected  to  happen  between  2008  and  now.  It 
should describe the points of comparison more clearly. This would help to assess the extent 
to  which  the  outcomes  are  related  to  shortcomings  in  the  Directive  itself,  to  its 
implementation or to external factors. 

(2)  The report seems to assume that certain changes in the quality of postal services, such 
as  the  reduction  of  the  scope  of  the  universal  service  or  its  frequency,  are  always  a 
response to changing consumer needs. Based on additional evidence (e.g. national surveys 
on consumers’ perceptions), the report should consider whether they have resulted in lower 
consumer satisfaction. It should present a more differentiated picture of the developments 
affecting  user  needs  and  satisfaction,  for  example  by  referring  separately  to  individual 
users and businesses.  

(3)  The  report  is  quite  clear  that  the  Directive  has  not  been  effective  in  stimulating 
effective  competition  in  the  letter  mail  segment.  It  should  analyse  more  in  depth  the 
reasons behind this, in particular given that this was one of the main objectives. The report 
should discuss the extent to which the limited progress in competition is due to deficiencies 
in the Directive, to limitations in the instruments or empowerment of national regulators, 
or  to  other  factors.  It  should  analyse  to  what  extent  scale  and  network  economies  of 
incumbents limit entry. It should expand on how the Directive has led to specialisation in 
the  market  for  postal  services.  The  report  should  discuss  whether  cross-subsidisation, 
which is prohibited in the Directive, is no longer a problem. It should also elaborate on the 
possible  reasons  why  Member  States  have  not  used  public  procurement  to  designate 
universal service providers. 

(4)  The report could provide more information on the role of the compensation funds in 
preserving the provision of the universal service. 

(5)  The  report  should  elaborate  more  on  the  views  of  different  stakeholders  (e.g. 
regulators,  operators,  users)  on  the  functioning  of  the  Directive  and  its  continued 
relevance. 

(6)  The  report  should  include  additional  evidence  to  support  its  conclusions.  Where 
relevant,  it  should  acknowledge  that  the  evidence base  remains  weak  and  avoid  drawing 
strong conclusions. 

Some more technical comments have been sent directly to the author DG. 

(D) Conclusion 

The DG may proceed. The DG must take these recommendations into account before 
launching the interservice consultation. 

Full title 

Evaluation  of  Directive  97/67/EC  on  common  rules  for  the 
development  of  the  internal  market  of  Community  postal 
services and the improvement of quality of service amended by 
Directives  2002/39/EC  and  2008/6/EC 
(Postal  Services 
Directive) 

Reference number 

PLAN/2019/5774 

2 

 
 
 
 
Submitted to RSB on 

18 February 2021 

Date of RSB meeting 

17 March 2021 

Electronically signed on 19/03/2021 10:32 (UTC+01) in accordance with article 11 of Commission Decision C(2020) 4482

3