REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the application and implementation of Regulation (EU) 2018/644 on cross-border parcel delivery services
Date: 2021-11-08
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: carriage of goods, consumer information, delivery, electronic commerce, freight rate, postal service, provision of services, single market, universal service

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 8.11.2021  COM(2021) 675 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the application and implementation of Regulation (EU)  2018/644 on cross-border parcel delivery services  
 
 
1 

INTRODUCTION 

There has been a significant increase in demand for parcel delivery services1 in recent years 
both  nationally  and  cross-border.  The  borderless  opportunities  for  online  shoppers  have 
driven an increase in  cross-border  e-commerce  and paved the way for a dynamic  growth  in 
parcel delivery services. As shown in the latest report by the European Regulators’ Group for 
Postal services (ERGP), the volume of parcels in the observed period 2018-2019 has grown 
9.1%  or  by  more  than  500  million  parcel  items.2  The  COVID-19  pandemic  has  further 
accelerated  these  developments.  Customers  had  access  to  a  significant  variety  of  products 
from  the  confinement  of  their  homes  and  delivery  operators  have  been  able  to  continue 
operating in  spite of restrictions imposed during  the pandemic, in  particular in  the transport 
and  freight  sectors.  Consumers  today  expect  access  to  a  wide  choice  of  parcel  delivery 
services, competitive offers of such services, both in terms of quality and level of tariffs and 
transparency  regarding  domestic  and  cross-border  tariffs  for  parcel  delivery  services. 
Furthermore,  consumers  increasingly  consider  the  quality  aspect,  such  as  flexible  points  of 
delivery and short delivery times, as important features of cross-border parcel delivery. 

Regulation  (EU)  2018/644  on  cross-border  parcel  delivery  services3  (hereinafter  the 
“Regulation”) was adopted in 2018 in the context of the EU Digital Single Market Strategy to 
address  the  concern  that  the  relatively  high  level  of  tariffs  applicable  to  cross-border  parcel 
delivery  services,  the  lack  of  transparency  and  regulatory  oversight  of  such  services  and 
related tariffs constituted an obstacle to the cross-border provision of parcel delivery services 
and to the functioning of the internal market.  

The  Regulation  builds  on  and  complements  the  rules  in  Directive  97/67/EC4  (the  “Postal 
Services  Directive”)  as  far  as  cross-border  parcel  delivery  services  are  concerned.  The 
Commission  adopted  together  with  this  report,  a  report  on  the  application  of  the  Postal 
Services  Directive,  drawing  upon  the  evaluation  of  the  Directive  and  identifying  possible 
areas where the postal services framework might have to be brought in line with market and 
technological developments and changing users’ needs.5 

The  Regulation  establishes  requirements  for  operators  to  report  their  tariffs  for  certain 
domestic  and  cross-border  delivery  services.  It  also  provides  for  a  procedure  by  which 
national regulatory authorities have to identify tariffs for cross-border delivery of single-piece 

1   Note that in accordance with Article 2 of the Regulation parcels mean postal items that contain goods with or 
without commercial value, other than an item of correspondence,  with a  weight  not exceeding 31,5kg, and 
parcel delivery services means services involving the clearance, sorting, transport and distribution of parcels.  

2    ERGP PL II (20) 23 Report on core indicators. 
3   Regulation (EU) 2018/644 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 April 2018 on cross-border 

parcel delivery services, OJ L 112, 2.5.2018, p. 19–28.  

4  Directive 97/67/EC of the European 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 as amended by Directive 2002/39/EC4 and Directive 2008/6/EC, OJ L 015 of 21 January 1998, p. 14 - 
25. 

5   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  Directive  2008/6/EC), 
COM(2021) 674 

EN 

1 

  EN 

 
                                                 
parcels  that  are  unreasonably  high.  The  Regulation  also  provides  all  regulatory  authorities 
with  consistent  powers  to  monitor  parcel  delivery  services.  Finally,  it  confirms  the  right  of 
consumers to be informed about cross-border delivery options, charges payable by consumers 
for cross-border parcel delivery, and about complaint handling policies of traders in line with 
the Consumer Rights Directive6. 

Article  11  of  the  Regulation  requires  the  Commission  to  report  on  the  application  and 
implementation  of  the  Regulation,  and  to  evaluate,  in  particular,  its  contribution  to  the 
improvement  of  cross-border  parcel  delivery  services,  including  the  affordability  for  SMEs 
and individuals and its impact on cross-border delivery levels and e-commerce. It should also 
look at the extent to which national regulatory authorities have had difficulties in applying the 
Regulation and progress made in other initiatives for completing the single market for parcel 
delivery services. 

This Report highlights the main achievements and challenges so far regarding application and 
implementation  and,  in  particular,  it  indicates  that  all  national  regulatory  authorities  have 
gained  significant  knowledge  on  the  parcel  delivery  operators  that  are  active  in  the  parcel 
delivery services market, including on new business models. 

2. 

METHOD AND SCOPE 

This  Report  covers  the  first  two  years  of  application  of  the  Regulation.  It  builds  on 
contributions from the ERGP7. The tariffs used in the report have been communicated by the 
national  regulatory  authorities  every  year  between  2019  and  2021.  The  Commission  also 
carried out  a targeted consultation addressed to delivery operators, consumers, retailers, and 
the social partners in the European Social Dialogue Committee for postal services. 

The  Regulation  obliges  national  regulatory  authorities  to  collect  specific  information, 
including tariffs, from parcel delivery service providers. The tariffs falling under the scope of 
the  Regulation  are  the  publicly  listed  domestic  and  intra-EU  cross-border  tariffs  for  15 
commonly used parcel delivery services as identified in the Annex to the Regulation. These 
tariffs  exclusively  concern  single-piece  items  without  any  discount.  They  therefore  apply 
primarily  to  parcel  delivery  services  purchased  by  individual  consumers  or  very  small  e-
retailers  which  have  not  negotiated  tariffs  with  operators.  Larger  senders,  particularly  e-
commerce  retailers  or  platforms,  benefit  in  general  from  negotiated  discounted  tariffs 
primarily due to high volumes, but also because the senders undertake some pre-sorting and 
transportation  activities.  Consequently,  the  publicly  listed  tariffs  apply  only  to  a  very  small 

6   Directive  2011/83/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  25  October  2011  on  consumer 
rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of 
the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament 
and of the Council, OJ L 304, 22.11.2011, p. 64–88. 

7   In particular, ERGP PL II (20) 24 Report on the evaluation of cross-border parcel delivery services. 

EN 

2 

  EN 

 
                                                 
part  of  the  overall  parcel  delivery  service  market  and  may  be  as  low  as  6%  of  the  overall 
volume of parcels.8  

Still, individual senders of single piece parcel items are particularly sensitive to tariffs, which 
should  remain  affordable  to  them.  This  was  confirmed  by  the  consumers  who  responded  to 
the  targeted  consultation.  Very  small  e-retailers,  which  are  more  likely  to  use  single  piece 
tariff  parcel  delivery  service,  often  look  for  the  cheapest  delivery  options  when  developing 
their  e-commerce  activities.  They  may  thus  benefit  from  increased  tariff  transparency. 
Transparent tariffs for single-piece items also serve as a reference point for larger e-retailers 
in the negotiation of discounted tariffs with delivery services providers.  

3 

OVERVIEW OF THE PARCEL DELIVERY MARKET IN THE EU 

The market for cross-border parcel delivery services has been open to competition since the 
1990s,  with  different  providers  offering  different  services  and  prices  depending  on  weight, 
size  and  destination,  as  well  as  added  value  features,  such  as  traceability  or  routing  time 
options.  

The  parcel  delivery  market  can  broadly  be  segmented  into  three  sub-markets  “business  to 
business”  (B2B),  “business  to  consumer”  (B2C)  and  “consumer  to  any  other  party”  (C2X). 
Out of these, the C2X segment constitutes only a small part of the market: for example, it is 
estimated that the C2X segment, representing parcels sent at single-piece list prices, is lower 
than  7%  of  the  total  parcel  delivery  market  in  Germany  and  lower  than  3%  in  the 
Netherlands9. 

The  growth  potential  of  the  parcel  delivery  market  is  closely  related  to  the  growth  of  the 
online  retail  market.  Total  internet  retail  sales  in  Europe  reached  €424bn  in  2019,  with  a 
growth  of  15%  per  year  since  2014.  Cross-border  delivery  represents  almost  24%  of  total 
online sales in Europe.10 As a result, the European parcel delivery market grew considerably 
in the past two years and exceeded €70bn in turnover in 201911. Technology for tracking and 
tracing  mail  and  parcels  and  a  more  secure,  reliable  delivery  service  has  improved  and 
boosted consumer confidence. 

The  COVID-19  crisis  has  greatly  accelerated  the  already  growing  e-commerce  and, 
subsequently, parcel delivery services. Globally, the average growth in parcel volumes in the 
second  quarter  of  2020,  during  the  COVID-19  lockdown,  was  43  percent12.  The  trend  has 
continued throughout the rest of the year.13  

8   According to the International Post Corporation (IPC) in 2019 the average volume send by individual senders 
is 5.8 percent, the one send by government is 10.5 percent and the one send by businesses is 83.7 percent. 

9   ERGP PL II (20) 24 Report on the evaluation of cross-border parcel delivery services. 
10   https://ecommercenews.eu/24-of-ecommerce-in-europe-is-cross-border/ 
11   European Parcels Market Insight Report 2020, Apex Insight. 
12   IPC (2020), Global Postal Industry report 2020, p. 9. 
13   E.g,  http://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/connecting-businesses-and-consumers-during-covid-
19-trade-in-parcels-d18de131/; and 22 European national regulators reported on increased parcel volumes in 

EN 

3 

  EN 

 
                                                 
 
The first short-term review of the Geo-blocking Regulation14 adopted on 30 November 2020, 
concluded that some e-retailers continue to be reluctant to offer cross-border delivery options. 
Even  though  the  Geo-blocking  Regulation  does  not  oblige  traders  to  deliver  across  borders 
where this is not provided for in the contract, the shopping process can be hampered at the last 
stages  because  consumers  are  only  then  informed  that  the  e-retailer  does  not  deliver  to  the 
home country of the consumer. A mystery shopping exercise referenced in the Geo-blocking 
Report  looking  at  different  aspects  of  online  shopping  (not  limited  to  cross-border  parcel 
delivery), revealed that only one in three cross-border shopping attempts was successful.  

Such  problems  potentially  frustrate  the  expectations  of  consumers  who  would  like  products 
offered online to be accessible across the EU single market. At the same time, online traders 
still  encounter  administrative  obstacles  (such  as  VAT-registration  requirements),  and  are 
unclear about the consumer protection requirements that apply to cross-border sales15. These 
issues deter e-retailers from more active cross-border engagement. 

Parcel  delivery  service  providers  active  in  the  market  include  national  postal  operators, 
international express and logistic operators, operators with predominantly domestic presence 
and  parcel  brokers  (i.e.,  intermediaries  between  customers  and  operators  which  aggregate 
customers’  demands  for  parcel  delivery  services).  While,  in  their  respective  countries, 
national universal service postal operators generally have very high market shares in the letter 
market16,  they  only  had  an  average  share  of  the  parcel  market  amounting  to  approximately 
33% in volume and 27% in revenues over the period 2015 to 2019.17 International express and 
logistic operators are the most important players in the various segments of the market, which 
has also seen international online retail platforms entering the parcel delivery market in some 
Member States (Austria, France, Germany, Italy and Spain). Besides historical operators with 
a  national  footprint,  therefore,  an  increasing  number  of  players  active  in  this  sector  have  a 
multinational/international logistic structure.  

The parcel delivery market is one where innovation and digitalisation are constantly ongoing. 
Technology  has  contributed  to  providing  better,  cheaper  and  more  reliable  parcel  delivery 
services. Operators have been investing in the improvement of their information systems, both 
to  provide  better  information  on  delivery  to  their  customers  (e.g.,  by  employing  innovative 
solutions  for  tracing  parcels)  and  to  improve  their  operational  effectiveness.  Many  carriers 
have  recently  deployed  cargo-bikes  for  last  mile  delivery,  electric  vehicles  to  reduce  the 

August (compared with 15 reporting in April), see European Regulators Group for Postal Services Report on 
the consequences of COVID-19 on the postal sector. 

14   COM(2020) 766 final 
15   These are the second- and third-most prominent obstacles for retailers respectively (after debt recovery) and 
still  affect  a  large  share  of  businesses  (60%  of  businesses  cite  VAT  procedures  as  an  obstacle  to  selling 
across  borders),  Commission  Staff  Working  Document:  Business  Journey  on  the  Single  Market:  Practical 
Obstacles and Barriers SWD(2020) 54 final. 

16   Paragraph  3.2  of  SWD(2021)  309  accompanying  the  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 Directive 2008/6/EC), COM(2021) 674 
17   ERGP report on core indicators for monitoring the European postal market, 2020. 

EN 

4 

  EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
environmental footprint, and have increased the use of parcel lockers and collection points for 
additional convenience of online shoppers.  

4 

MAIN FINDINGS OF THE APPLICATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REGULATION 

4.1 

Regulatory oversight 

In  accordance  with  the  requirements  set  out  in  the  Regulation,  parcel  delivery  service 
providers (with more than 50 employees or established in more than one Member State) have 
submitted key information about their activities including turnover, volumes, and staffing to 
the national regulatory authority where they are established. However, nine out of the thirteen 
trade union representatives who participated in the consultation were of the opinion that this 
reporting had not enhanced transparency in relation to the number of staff employed by parcel 
delivery operators and eleven reported that it had not enhanced reporting and transparency for 
what  concerns  the  employment  status  of  workers  in  the  parcel  delivery  sector.  The  ERGP 
reported that several national regulatory authorities had experienced difficulties in collecting 
employment data and providing the necessary granularity in the information on employment. 
Moreover,  it  reported  that,  in  2020,  15  national  regulatory  authorities  had  decided  not  to 
publish the data collected18. 

Providers  operating  across  borders  have  also  submitted  their  public  list  of  tariffs  for  15 
commonly  used  parcel  delivery  services.  These  reporting  obligations  have  overall  led  to  a 
more  coherent  and  detailed  information  and  data  collection  process  across  Member  States, 
even if some disparities could be noticed in the level of precision of the data submitted.  

National regulatory authorities have submitted the public list of tariffs for the 15 commonly 
used  parcel  delivery  services  to  the  Commission  once  a  year.  The  deadline  to  submit  the 
tariffs has in most cases been respected by all the regulators. National regulatory authorities 
were also required to identify and assess those tariffs that are considered unreasonably high, 
and  submit  these  assessments  to  the  Commission.  Such  assessment,  however,  only  covers 
tariffs for services subject to a universal service obligation, as only such services are required 
to  be  cost-oriented  and  affordable  in  line  with  the  Postal  Services  Directive.  In  its  2018 
guidelines  the  Commission  recommends  that  when  national  regulators  apply  a  pre-
assessment-filter-mechamism,  i.e.,  a  system  to  rank  the  cross-border  tariffs  for  the  15 
commonly  used  parcel  delivery  services  as  part  of  the  assessment  procedure,  they  should 
examine the 25% of the highest tariffs in the ranking. The ERGP has recently recommended 
to the Commission  19 that from the 2022 exercise, national regulatory authorities reduce the 
assessment to the 20% highest tariffs. 

In 2020, 20 assessment reports were submitted by national regulators to the Commission, the 
same number as in 2019.  In those 6 countries where potentially high tariffs were observed in 

18   ERGP PL II (20) 24 Report on the evaluation of cross-border parcel delivery services. 
19   On 29 April 2021 the ERGP published ERGP PL (21) 4 regarding a  possible reduction of the percentage of 

the pre-assessment filter mechanism. 

EN 

5 

  EN 

 
                                                 
2020, intervention from the national  regulators led to  lower prices in  two Member States in 
2021.  

The  Commission  has  published  the  non-confidential  versions  of  the  above-mentioned 
assessment reports.20 It has also adopted an Implementing Regulation21 on 20 September 2018 
establishing the forms for the submission of information by parcel delivery service providers. 
Moreover, on 12 December 2018, it issued guidelines to national regulatory authorities on the 
transparency  and  assessment  of  cross-border  parcel  tariffs.22  Both  acts  aim  at  standardising 
and  ensuring  the  consistency  of  reporting  and  tariff  assessments,  while  at  the  same  time 
reducing the  administrative burden on national  regulatory  authorities and  on parcel  delivery 
service providers. 

The Regulation requires Member States to adopt rules on penalties, which apply to providers 
which do not comply with the Regulation. All national regulatory authorities have sanctioning 
powers  via  national  legislation.  None  of  the  national  regulatory  authorities  have  so  far 
imposed sanctions due to alleged infringements of the Regulation.  

Overall,  the  obligations  under  the  Regulation  have  been  fulfilled  by  the  parcel  delivery 
service  providers,  the  national  regulatory  authorities  and  Member  States.  In  some  instances 
national regulatory authorities have been late with submitting tariff assessment reports to the 
Commission. The extent to which the delays will persist in the coming reporting periods, and 
the reasons thereof, will be monitored by the Commission.  

Administrative consequences and difficulties for the national regulatory authorities 

As  regards  the  collection  and  submission  of  information  by  the  parcel  delivery  service 
providers,  some  regulators  have  reported  minor  but  various  issues  encountered  by  parcel 
delivery service providers regarding, for example, divergent interpretations of specific terms23 
(franchisees,  subcontractors)  or  related  to  certain  data24  (turnover,  volumes,  employment). 
However, in 2020, fewer national regulatory authorities reported such difficulties compared to 
2019, which may suggest a learning curve.  

As regards collection and submission of tariffs from parcel delivery service providers to the 
national regulatory authorities, which in turn submit the tariffs to the Commission, the main 
difficulties reported have been connected to technical difficulties with the parcel application 
(a web based data collection tool) used for submitting the tariffs. These have been resolved. A 
few national regulatory authorities received tariffs from parcel delivery service providers with 

20 

https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/postal-services/parcel-delivery/assessment-cross-border-single-piece-

parcel-tariffs_en 

21   Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1263 of 20 September 2018 establishing the forms for the 
submission of information by parcel delivery service providers pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2018/644 of the 
European Parliament and of the Council, C/2018/6007. 

22   Communication  from  the  Commission  on  guidelines  to  national  regulatory  authorities  on  the  transparency 
and  assessment  of  cross-border  parcel  tariffs  pursuant  to  Regulation  (EU)  2018/644  and  Commission 
Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1263, COM/2018/838 final. 

23   15 NRAs in 2019 and 9 in 2020. 
24   7 NRAs in 2019 and 5 in 2020. 

EN 

6 

  EN 

 
                                                 
some delays and therefore had difficulties in verifying them and in meeting the deadline for 
submission to the Commission.  

As far as tariffs for the 15 commonly used parcel delivery services are concerned, problems 
with definitions and difficulties to find the right tariff category are often due to the fact that 
the  Regulation  is  based  on  weight  categorisation  used  by  designated  universal  service 
providers. Other parcel delivery service providers (often express service providers) may rather 
base  their  tariffs  on  different  criteria  such  as  dimension  instead  of  weight.  Some  providers 
therefore  found  it  difficult  to  fit  their  services  into  one  of  the  15  categories.  This  made  it 
difficult  to  have  a  genuine  comparison  of  tariffs.  Some  inconsistency  in  the  allocations  of 
products where some providers report the same parcel product data in different categories has 
also  been  noticed.  Some  universal  service  providers  report  that  there  are  no  track  and  trace 
parcel services available, apart from the standard untracked universal service parcels.  

The number of parcel delivery service providers reporting tariffs to their national regulatory 
authority greatly varies between Member States, irrespective of the size of the Member State. 
The number of providers offering domestic and cross-border delivery services for a 1kg parcel 
with  track  and  trace  vary  between  4  and  18  depending  on  the  Member  State.  This  may 
indicate either varying degrees of market concentration across the EU or some difficulties for 
regulators to enforce the reporting obligations vis-à-vis operators. 

Regarding  the  national  regulatory  authorities'  assessment  of  tariffs  that  may  be 
unreasonably  high,  the  main  difficulties  reported  by  regulatory  authorities  were  generally 
related  to  data  availability  and  comparability  issues.  Experience  has  shown  that  certain 
elements  to  be  taken  into  account  by  the  regulators  in  the  assessment,  notably  volumes 
between  the  Member  State  of  origin  and  the  one  of  delivery,  specific  transportation  and 
handling costs and other relevant costs and service quality, were more used than others (such 
as the likely impact  on individual  and small  and medium-sized enterprise users) in  carrying 
out the tariff assessments. 

The ERGP also assessed the administrative consequences for national regulatory authorities 
in their application of the Regulation25.  

The average number of staff-hours spent for the collection and processing of information as 
required by the Regulation were 108 in 2020 compared to 168 in 2019 (-35%). The average 
number of staff-hours spent for collection and submission of tariffs were 95 in 2020 compared 
to  159  in  2019  (-40%).  The  number  of  staff-hours  spent  however  vary  quite  significantly 
amongst national regulatory authorities. For the carrying out of the assessment of tariffs, the 
average of staff-hours spent were 135 in 2020 compared to 182 in 2019 (-26%). 

The issues reported above seem to be primarily linked to the initial period of application and 
do  not  suggest  any  significant  problems  in  data  collection  and  regulatory  oversight.  The 
Commission  will  monitor  whether  certain  issues  persist  and  assess  how  a  better  data 

25 ERGP PL II (20) 24 Report on the evaluation of cross-border parcel delivery services. 

EN 

7 

  EN 

 
                                                 
comparability  could  be  ensured,  for  instance  through  guidance  to  operators  and  regulatory 
authorities.  

Technical  difficulties  with  the  transmission  of  data  for  publication  in  the  web  based  parcel 
application will need to be continuously monitored.  

4.2 

Transparency of cross-border tariffs  

In  order  to  increase  transparency  of  cross-border  tariffs,  the  Commission  has  established  in 
2019  a  web  based  transparency  tool.  This  tool  publishes  the  public  list  domestic  and  cross-
border  tariffs  for  15  commonly  used  parcel  delivery  services  for  single  piece  items  in  all 
Member States26. These are in principle relevant only for consumers or very small (micro) e-
retailers that do not benefit from discounted tariffs. 

In 2021, the Commission  published 40,440 tariffs applied by 281 parcel  delivery providers, 
down  from  52,276  tariffs  of  386  parcel  delivery  providers  in  2019.  The  decrease  in  the 
number  of  providers  and  tariffs  does  not  seem  to  reflect  a  real  trend  towards  some 
consolidation  on  the  market,  but  rather  to  be  the  outcome  of  national  regulatory  authorities 
reassessing or redefining the scope of their reporting obligations after their initial experience 
in  2019  as  in  certain  countries  subsidiaries  operating  in  the  same  country  were  duplicating 
price data.  

Based  on  the  number  of  visits,  the  level  of  awareness  of  the  web  based  transparency  tool 
appears rather low. The monthly average of visits in 2019 was 333, and in 2020 the number 
was  814.  Some  national  regulatory  authorities  have  been  more  pro-active  than  others  in 
disseminating  the  link  to  the  tool  as  can  be  observed  by  the  profile  of  users  where  most 
visitors of the page came from Italy (40%), Hungary (16%), Belgium (8%), Croatia (7%). The 
Commission  and  national  regulators  should  undertake  efforts  to  promote  and  improve  the 
user-friendliness of this transparency tool.  

The  respondents  to  the  Commission’s  targeted  consultation  on  cross-border  parcel  delivery 
confirm that e-retailers and consumers are hardly aware of its existence. While parcel delivery 
service  providers  are  more  aware  of  it,  they  point  out  that  more  relevant  information  is 
available on their own websites, as well as on other price comparison websites.  

The  national  regulatory  authorities  highlight  an  additional  number  of  shortcomings  of  the 
Commission’s  web  based  transparency  tool,  raising  questions  about  its  effectiveness  in  its 
current format.27 For example, the database of the website is updated only once a year, while 
tariffs may change throughout the year. National regulatory authorities also mention that the 
tariffs  may  not  represent  the  most  common  services  used  by  individuals  and  e-retailers. 
Moreover,  some  parcel  delivery  service  providers  base  tariffs  on  the  dimension  of  a  parcel 
and not on its weight (which is one of the search criteria used on the web tool). In addition, 

26   https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/postal-services/parcel-delivery/public-tariffs-cross-border_en 
27   ERGP PL II (20) 24 Report on the evaluation of cross-border parcel delivery services. 

EN 

8 

  EN 

 
                                                 
there  are  other  product  characteristics  end-customers  need  in  order  to  make  an  informed 
choice, such as delivery time or insurance conditions. These are not reported on.  

In  line  with  the  Regulation,  tariffs  available  on  the  Commission’s  website  do  not  include 
VAT. A parcel delivery service provider that is not a universal service provider is subject to 
VAT,  while  a  universal  service  provider  is  not.  The  comparaison  tool  therefore  makes  it 
difficult for consumers to compare the real price they would pay for a parcel delivery service. 
This affects its effectiveness and user friendliness.  

A more dynamic price calculator, for example, one that regularly provides updated tariffs, or 
that  allows  users  to  include  more  options  in  their  search  for  the  desired  service,  may  be  a 
better alternative than the existing Commission web tool. National regulatory authorities are 
however  cautioning  that  such  an  approach  may  risk  imposing  a  significant  administrative 
burden  on  both  regulators  and  parcel  delivery  service  providers,  and  argue  that  commercial 
providers may be better placed to provide such a service which is already available in some 
Member States.  

According  to  the  Regulation,  the  Commission’s  web  tool  has  to  be  neutral  and  non-
commercial in character. Discounts between e-retailers and parcel delivery operators are the 
result of negotiations between the two parties.  Including them in  the Commission’s website 
would not be informative as they would not reflect the specific conditions applicable to all e-
retailers.  In  addition,  these  discounts  are  business  sensitive  data  which  is  not  publicly 
available.  

While  it  is  still  early  to  fully  assess  the  functioning  of  the  Commission’s  tariff  related  web 
based  transparency  tool,  there  seems  to  be  more  transparency  on  the  tariffs  for  the  cross-
border delivery of single piece parcels today than prior to the Regulation. To address the low 
use  of  the  transparency  tool,  the  Commission  will  consider  which  improvements  could  be 
made  to  the  web  tool  in  order  to  ensure  greater  comparability  between  tariffs,  especially 
addressing the VAT different treatment. It will also ensure a better promotion to the public at 
large, notably by demonstrating its complementarity to other price comparison tools currently 
available.  

Affordability for SMEs and individuals 

Enhanced  transparency  of  tariffs  is  supposed  to  contribute  to  the  improvement  and 
affordability  of  cross-border  parcel  delivery  services,  in  particular  for  users  of  the  single 
piece, non negotiated services.  

A tariff analysis has been conducted for a 1kg  and 2kg standard parcel  with track and trace 
feature,  the  most  popular  categories  in  terms  of  number  of  price  offers  on  the  transparency 
tool28.  The  analysis  covers  the  evolution  over  the  first  three  years  of  data  collection.  It 

28   These products were also chosen for their wide usage among consumers. It is estimated that 86% of the items 

purchased online in another country weighted less than 2 kg.  

EN 

9 

  EN 

 
                                                 
provides  some  contrasting  evidence  for  the  evolution  and  level  for  the  tariffs  of  services 
offered by universal service providers and non universal service providers 29.  

The average tariffs for the cross-border delivery of these two parcels30 by universal service 
providers  generally  remained  broadly  stable  in  nominal  terms  over  the  period  2019-2021 
with the exception of Finland, that experienced an important decrease in cross-border tariffs, 
and  Hungary  where  there  was  a  substantial  increase.  Over  the  same  time  period  many 
Member States also experienced important increases in tariffs for the domestic delivery of the 
same parcels, with increases of more than 12% in eight Member States.  

The ratio between the average cross-border and domestic tariffs charged by universal service 
providers in 2021 ranges from around 2 (in France, Malta, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden 
for both parcels) to around 9 (in Romania for the 2kg track and trace parcel). This indicates 
that on average, cross-border tariffs are from two to nine times more expensive than domestic 
ones. The ratio did not change much over the three years under review. 

Average cross-border tariffs of the same parcel categories delivered by non universal service 
providers  show  a  steeper  percentage  tariff  increase  over  the  period  2019-2021.  In  many 
instances however, the increase of domestic tariffs is even higher. The ratio between average 
cross-border and domestic tariffs charged by non-universal service providers in 2021 ranges 
from around 2 (in Finland, France, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands for the 1kg track 
and trace parcel) to around 30 (Malta for the 2kg track and trace parcel). 

Average cross-border tariffs charged by non-universal service providers are generally higher 
than  the  universal  service  ones  charged  by  universal  service  providers.  A  comparison  of 
tariffs charged by universal service providers and non-universal service providers in 2019 also 
shows that the universal service tariffs charged  by universal  service providers for sending a 
1kg track and trace parcel across borders are closer to the lower range of tariffs charged for 
that service than to the highest tariff31. 

Price is however not the only factor that makes the delivery of a parcel affordable (or not) for 
the final user. The quality of services, such as delivery time or point of delivery also plays an 
important  role.  Overall,  service  levels  have  improved  in  the  past  few  years,  for  example  in 
terms  of  quicker  delivery,  digital  track  and  trace  systems  informing  the  recipient  of  the 
location  of  the  parcel,  or  broader  availability  of  alternative  delivery  points  such  as  locker 
stations or shops. In a context of stable or slightly increasing prices, parcel delivery services 
now demonstrate a higher level of quality, or include delivery services for free. 

In 2019, only a small number of those Member States  where universal  service parcels  were 
identified in the higher range of cross-border tariffs, concluded in their assessment that those 
tariffs  were  unreasonably  high  (four  Member  States),  or  potentially  unreasonably  high  (one 
Member State). When taking into account a number of objective elements, such as any other 

29   See Annex 1 of this report for the detailed data and the methodology used. 
30   See also Annex 1 , tables with evolution of single piece tariffs. 
31   ERGP PL II (20) 23 Report on Postal Core Indicators. 

EN 

10 

  EN 

 
                                                 
relevant  tariff  for  a  comparable  parcel  delivery  service,  volumes  of  trade  flows,  or  specific 
transportation,  handling  or  any  other  relevant  costs,  those  regulators  concluded  there  was  a 
significant  difference  between  the  tariffs  and  their  underlying  costs.  Generally,  tariffs 
identified  as  unreasonably  high  in  2019  were  also  identified  as  unreasonably  high  in  2020. 
The Regulation does not provide for any obligation for national regulators to take measures to 
correct such situation  

The Postal Services Directive only provides for a general framework for the assessment of the 
affordability and cost-orientation of the tariffs of universal postal services. According to the 
ERGP32, a number of national regulatory authorities confirm the affordability of those tariffs 
for consumers and small and medium sized enterprises. The reasons for this include the fact 
that  alternative  delivery  service  providers  offered  similar  services  at  lower  prices,  or  the 
tariffs concerned products that were not commonly used.  

In  response  to  the  Commission’s  consultation,  stakeholders  expressed  mixed  views  on 
whether tariffs for parcel delivery services are affordable. End customers and associations of 
retailers  stated  that  over  the  last  two  years  there  has  been  no  change  in  the  affordability  of 
tariffs. In contrast, a majority of parcel delivery service providers, including universal service 
providers,  have  a  more  positive  view  and  believe  that  the  affordability  of  parcel  delivery 
services  has improved.  The overall assessment  of the responses to  the consultation  suggests 
that tariffs in general are affordable.  

The  Commission  will  continue  to  monitor  the  tariffs  charged  by  postal  service  delivery 
operators,  their  development  and  affordability  for  users,  taking  also  into  account  the 
significant overall change in volumes over the last years. 

Impact on cross-border parcel delivery levels and e-commerce, including data on delivery 
charges 

The  Regulation,  with  its  limited  scope  and  targeted  objectives,  does  not  contain  any 
provisions  that  can  directly  influence  the  levels  of  cross-border  parcel  delivery  in  an  e-
commerce context. 

The  increased  transparency  of  cross-border  tariffs  could  help  the  setup  of  new  small  e-
retailers  as  well  as  already  existing  small  brick  and  mortar  retailers  that  decide  to  sell  their 
products online by identifying the best delivery options among the 15 commonly used parcel 
delivery  services.  The  latter  also  includes  those  many  small  brick  and  mortar  retailers  that 
were forced to find alternative solutions to sell their products in the context of the COVID-19 
pandemic, in particular during lockdown periods.  

Indeed, when it comes to delivery charges in the context of e-commerce, a distinction has to 
be made between tariffs that parcel delivery service providers charge e-retailers, and amounts 
that  e-retailers  charge  their  end  customers  for  delivery.  While  the  Regulation  aims  at 
rendering  certain  tariffs  charged  by  parcel  delivery  service  providers  more  affordable  for 

32 ERGP PL II (20) 24 Report on the evaluation of cross-border parcel delivery services. 

EN 

11 

  EN 

 
                                                 
individuals  via  increased  transparency,  the  tariffs  negotiated  by  the  retailer  may  be 
significantly different.The amount that the end customer ends up paying in a transaction will 
largely  depend  on  the  business  strategy  of  the  retailer.  An  e-retailer  may  indeed  decide  to 
offer shipping free of charge by absorbing the delivery costs (all or in part), or integrating the 
delivery costs (all or in  part) into the price of the product. The same can happen with other 
costs  linked  to  the  online  sale  of  products,  for  example  packaging  costs.  It  is  therefore  not 
possible  to  extrapolate  from  the  total  price  paid  by  the  end  customer  what  the  real  delivery 
charges are. This makes it difficult to evaluate whether the Regulation has any impact on the 
delivery  costs  that  end  customers  pay  for  the  products  they  buy  online.  It  may  however  be 
worth investigating how tariffs for parcel deliveries in an e-commerce context are set. 

4.3 

Information for consumers 

The Regulation specifies that for contracts falling within the scope of the Consumer Rights 
Directive33, consumers must already at the pre-contractual stage be given information by the 
traders  about  the  cross-border  delivery  options,  the  charges  payable  by  consumers  and  the 
complaints handling policies of the trader. The EU regulatory framework on consumer rights 
has recently been revised resulting in the following new initatives that are relevant for parcel 
delivery: 

  the  Directive  on  better  enforcement  and  modernisation  of  EU  consumer  protection 
rules34 requires the online marketplace to mention explicitly how the obligations related to 
the contract are shared between the third party offering the goods and the provider of the 
online marketplace (e.g., including which trader – the third party or the online marketplace 
-  is  responsible  for  providing  the  parcel  delivery,  for  handling  the  returned  goods,  and 
where the consumer can turn in case of problems); 

  the Directive on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of 
consumers35  will  also  make  it  possible  for  qualified  entities  to  bring  collective  actions 
both to cease the infringements of consumer’ rights and to obtain redress. It is noteworthy 
that although the Representative Actions Directive (EU) 2020/1828, applicable since 2023, 
does  not  mention  Regulation  2018/644  among  the  legal  acts  listed  in  Annex  I  of  that 
Directive,  Member  States  remain  competent  to  make  provisions  of  Directive  (EU) 
2020/1828 applicable to areas additional to those mentioned in Annex I36. 

33   Directive  2011/83/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  25  October  2011  on  consumer 
rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of 
the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament 
and of the Council, OJ L 304, 22.11.2011, p. 64–88. 

34   Directive (EU) 2019/2161 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2019 amending 
Council  Directive  93/13/EEC  and  Directives  98/6/EC,  2005/29/EC  and  2011/83/EU  of  the  European 
Parliament  and  of  the  Council  as  regards  the  better  enforcement  and  modernisation  of  Union  consumer 
protection rules. 

35   Directive  (EU)  2020/1828  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  25  November  2020  on 
representative  actions  for  the  protection  of  the  collective  interests  of  consumers  and  repealing  Directive 
2009/22/EC. 

36  Recital (18) of Directive (EU) 2020/1828 of 25 November 2020 on representative actions for the protection of 

the collective interests of consumers and repealing Directive 2009/22/EC. 

EN 

12 

  EN 

 
                                                 
5 

PROGRESS  ON  OTHER  INITIATIVES  FOR  COMPLETING  THE  SINGLE  MARKET  FOR 
PARCEL DELIVERY SERVICES  

The  Regulation  requires  progress  to  be  assessed  also  on  other  initiatives  relevant  for  cross-
border  parcel  delivery.  The  section  below  highlights  recent  developments  affecting  cross-
border parcel delivery. 

Digitisation and e-commerce 

Ending unjustified cross-border e-commerce barriers, improving cross-border parcel delivery 
services,  protecting  online  customer  rights  and  promoting  cross-border  access  to  online 
content are cornerstones of the Digital Single Market Strategy. A new regulatory framework 
on Geo-blocking entered into force on 3 December 201837.  

Even  if  the  Geoblocking  Regulation  referred  to  above  does  not  regulate  cross-border  parcel 
delivery,  it  serves  in  particular  to  address  and  tackle  discrimination  against  consumers  and 
businesses based on their nationality, place of residence or establishment, when buying goods 
or  services  online  in  the  EU.  On  30  November  2020,  the  first  Report  on  the  Geoblocking 
Regulation  was published by the Commission,  from  which it appeared that consumers  have 
often  high  expectations  on  cross-border  delivery  across  the  internal  market,  which  are 
frustrated  by  denial  or  the  absence  of  delivery  options  for  certain  countries,  including  by 
multinational traders. It concluded that the shopping process is often stopped in its final stages 
because the trader does  not deliver to the shopper’s  country. Only one in three cross-border 
shopping  attempts  was  successful  in  the  recent  mystery-shopping  exercise38.  This  is  mainly 
due to the persistence of delivery limitations in cross-border shopping. Such restrictions still 
affect  more  than  50%  of  shopping  attempts,  even  with  multinational  traders  who  offer 
different national versions of their websites.  

For  these  reasons  the  Commission  concluded,  inter  alia,  that  it  will  further  monitor  the 
evolution of elements affecting the active cross-border engagement of traders, including with 
regard to  cross-border delivery and/or on the availability of innovative delivery services for 
consumers.39 

37   On 30 November 2020, a Report was published by the Commission, where it appeared that the first months 
of implementation by national enforcement and assistance bodies showed that, when it comes to disputes and 
problems, consumers have often greater expectations about the rights and obligations at stake  

38   Ipsos et al (2020).  
39   https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/commission-publishes-its-short-term-review-geo-

blocking-regulation 

EN 

13 

  EN 

 
 
                                                 
Development of standards 

The Commission’s most recent standardisation request was adopted in 201640 and completed 
in  2020.  Several  standards  developed  since  then  aim  at  improving  parcel  delivery 
operations:41 

  A  standard  for  measuring  complaints  concerning  damaged,  delayed  or  lost  parcels.  The 
standard puts emphasis on e-commerce by addressing the issue with multiple operators for 
a consignment, as well as the role of the recipient in relation to the person who has paid for 
the service; 

  standardisation  of  parcel  boxes  with  digital  features.  Such  parcel  boxes  for  home  use 

improve the user-friendliness of e-commerce; 

  interfaces for cross border parcels. This tool contributes to e-commerce by specifying the 
information  exchange  between  the  e-merchant  and  the  first  logistic  operator.  It  concerns 
both the physical label and the electronic exchanges; 

  standardisation of requirements for electronic advance data in postal operations. This tool 
concerns data that is sent before the parcel actually arrives, indicating value, risk material 
etc. It promotes interoperability of parcel delivery operations. 

A new Commission standardization request on postal services is currently under preparation. 

Interconnect 

30 postal operators, including a majority of EU universal service providers, participate in the 
Interconnect  programme  launched  by  the  International  Post  Corporation  (IPC)  to 
improve  the  inter-operability  of  cross-border  parcel  delivery.  Participating  universal  service 
providers  have  committed  to  receive  and  deliver  items  from  each  other  in  accordance  with 
jointly  agreed  standards  enabling  them  to  grow  their  volumes  of  e-commerce  delivery. 
Interconnect registered record levels of tracked cross-border parcels in 2020.42 This is in part 
due  to  the  COVID-related  e-commerce  boom,  but  also  reflects  the  increasing  trust  by  posts 
and  e-retailers.  In  2018,  IPC  also  launched  a  cross-border  shopping  platform  (“Dynamic 
Merchant  Platform”)  which  enables  e-retailers,  especially  SMEs,  to  offer  their  customers  a 
wide range of (cross-border) postal delivery solutions.43 

Universal Postal Union  

The substantial growth of parcels originating from non-EU countries, in particular South-East 
Asian  countries,  has  presented  a  number  of  important  commercial  and  policy  challenges  to 

40   M/548 was adopted by the Commission in August 2016 C (2016) 4876 final of 1.8.2016. 
41  Commission  Implementing  Decision  (EU)  2021/1827  of  18  October  2021  on  standards  for  postal  services 
and the improvement of quality of service in support of Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and 
of the Council – OJ L 369, 19.10.2021 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dec_impl/2021/1827/oj 

42   https://www.ipc.be/news-portal/general-news/2021/01/27/15/00/record-volumes 
43   WIK 2019,Development of Cross-border E-commerce through Parcel Delivery , p. 137. 

EN 

14 

  EN 

 
                                                 
EU operators. Universal  postal service providers were indeed receiving from the originating 
provider  a  remuneration  (“terminal  dues”)  that  was  far  too  low  and  unrelated  to  either 
domestic postage or actual delivery costs.  

This  created  market  distortions  in  the  e-commerce  sector,  by  allowing  non  EU  e-commerce 
operators to benefit from lower delivery charges. This particularly affected European small e-
retailers.  In  2019  the  remuneration  system  set  at  a  global  level  in  the  framework  of  the  the 
Universal Postal Union was revised with the introduction of a remuneration rate which could 
be decided unilaterally by the receiving universal service operator and amount to 70% of the 
tariff  for  single-piece  domestic  delivery  (the  so-called  self-declared  rates).  These  will  be 
gradually introduced till 2025 (July 2020 for the United States).  

Furthermore, the exemption from import VAT applying to goods with a very small value up 
to EUR 22 has been eliminated as of 1 July 2021. This served to address the problem of fraud 
caused  by  a  previously  misused  VAT  exemption  for  goods  coming  from  outside  the  EU 
which resulted in market distortions and created unfair competition44. These changes will lead 
to a greater level playing field for parcel delivery providers and e-retailers. 

6 

CONCLUSIONS 

In  its  current  form,  the  Regulation  has  a  limited  scope  and  clearly  defined  objectives.  By 
focusing on single-piece parcel delivery, it does not address the tariffs for bulk deliveries in 
an e-commerce context. Within its scope and limitations, the Regulation has broadly achieved 
its  key  objectives  to  increase  the  level  of  transparency  of  certain  single-piece  tariffs  and 
enhance regulatory oversight for the part of the parcel delivery market falling under its scope. 
Importantly, the Regulation’s new reporting obligations have led to some improvement in the 
way information and data have been collected across the Member States. This contributed to 
enhancing the parcel market monitoring capabilities of the national regulatory authorities. The 
Member States, the national regulatory authorities and parcel delivery service providers have 
in  general  fulfilled  their  obligations  under  the  Regulation.  Over  the  reporting  period,  the 
national regulatory authorities did not use their sanctioning powers to enforce the Regulation. 
At this early stage, the Commission considers it is too soon to assess the direct and indirect 
effects of the implementation of the Regulation and consider amendments in this regard. More 
time  is  also  needed  to  be  able  to  assess  how  the  Regulation  interacts  with  other  on-going 
initiatives that may directly or indirectly address issues tackled by the Regulation. This could 
include investigating how tariffs for parcel deliveries are set.  

Several initiatives could be pursued to improve tariff transparency and regulatory oversight: 

  the comparability of the data collected by national regulatory authorities could be further 
improved  by  some  further  guidance  from  the  Commission  in  cooperation  with  the 
European Regulators Group for Postal Services; 

44   https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_17_4404 

EN 

15 

  EN 

 
                                                 
  the Commission will also continue to monitor the tariffs charged by postal service delivery 
operators,  their  development  and  affordability  for  users  and  pay  attention  to  alternative 
business  models,  such  as  those  drawing  on  the  collaborative  economy  and  e-commerce 
platforms  which  are  entering  the  parcel  deliver  markets.  The  Commission  will  equally 
keep monitoring the overall marketing practices of traders and the impact of these practices 
on  the  choices  available  to  the  public  across  the  EU  in  the  context  of  the  Geoblocking 
Regulation; 

  the Commission and national regulatory authorities should pursue their efforts to promote 
the  Commission’s  web  based  transparency  tool  and  improve  its  user  friendliness,  in 
particular  by  demonstrating  its  added  value  compared  to  other  price  comparison  tools 
currently  available.  The  limitations  of  the  tool  should  be  acknowledged  as  the  published 
tariffs concern single-piece items without any discounts, which apply only to a very small 
part  of  the  overall  parcel  delivery  services  market,  and  not  to  the  broader  e-commerce 
context. Possible improvements to improve the transparency tool and bring it more in line 
with  market  realities  will  be  discussed  with  consumer  representatives,  operators  and 
national regulators; 

  moreover, overall coherence with other ongoing initiatives, such as the implementation of 

the European Digital Agenda and the European Green Deal, should be ensured.  

The  Commission  invites  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  and  the  European 
Economic  and  Social  Committee  to  take  note  of  this  report,  according  to  Article  11  of  the 
Regulation. 

EN 

16 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 1 

 TARIFF ANALYSIS OF 1KG AND 2KG TRACK AND TRACE PARCEL 

Methodology 

The tariff tables for the 1kg and 2 kg track and trace parcels are based on single piece tariffs 
that  have  been  published  in  2019,  2020  and  2021  on  the  Commission’s  tariff  transparency 
web  tool45.  The  tariffs  are  reported  in  Euro  and  exclude  value  added  tax.  In  order  to  avoid 
exchange rate fluctuations affecting the trend calculations, the rate applied on 31 March 2020 
by the European Central Bank has been used to  convert into Euro all those tariffs that were 
expressed in a non-Euro currency for all three years. 

As the data collection process  only started in  2019, the Commission  observes that the price 
data set across the three years is not fully stable yet. In particular, there is some uncertainty on 
whether  inconsistencies  are  due  to  real  trend  developments  or  data  collection  issues  (i.e., 
inconsistent data reporting of providers or changing collection practices of the regulators). To 
deal with this issue the data set has been cleaned by: (1) removing parcel products that have 
not been consistently reported in each of the three years; and (2) removing the parcel product 
of a given provider for which an abnormally low price was reported in 2020/2021 compared 
to  2019.  These  tables  should  therefore  be  used  with  the  necessary  caution  and  take  these 
limitations in consideration. 

45 https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/postal-services/parcel-delivery/public-tariffs-cross-border_en 

EN 

17 

  EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
Table 1 USO by Universal service providers– 1kg and 2kg track & trace parcel – Domestic and cross-border tariffs for 2019, 2020 and 2021 

1 kg t&t parcel  (in EUR) 

2 kg t&t parcel (in EUR) 

2019 

2020 

2021 

% diff. 2021 vs 2019 

2019 

2020 

2021 

% diff. 2021 vs 2019 

Dom. 

EEA   Dom. 

EEA   Dom. 

EEA   Dom. 

EEA  

Dom. 

EEA   Dom. 

EEA   Dom. 

EEA   Dom. 

EEA  

4,8 
5,7 
2,6 
4,2 
4,0 
8,0 
3,8 
4,8 
7,8 
2,6 
4,3 
2,5 
9,0 
7,0 
1,7 
7,7 

Austria 
Belgium 
Croatia 
Cyprus 
Czech Republic 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Finland 
France 
Greece 
Hungary 
Lithuania 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovakia 
Slovenia 
Spain 
Sweden 
Source: data from EU tariff transparency tool, covering 21 Member States 

13,9 
30,5 
13,7 
16,5 
15,3 
22,1 
17,2 
27,2 
15,5 
22,4 
23,8 
14,4 
13,9 
17,0 
11,9 
27,3 
11,9 
16,7 
13,7 
29,4 
25,1 

13,9 
30,5 
13,8 
16,5 
15,3 
20,4 
17,1 
20,6 
16,0 
22,1 
27,9 
14,1 
13,9 
16,8 
11,9 
27,3 
11,4 
16,7 
14,0 
30,5 
25,1 

4,8 
5,7 
3,3 
4,2 
4,7 
8,0 
5,2 
4,8 
8,0 
3,0 
4,8 
2,5 
9,0 
7,3 
2,9 
8,1 
1,4 
3,9 
4,4 
12,7 
11,0 

13,9 
30,5 
13,7 
16,5 
15,3 
21,0 
17,2 
27,0 
15,2 
22,4 
23,7 
14,4 
13,9 
16,8 
11,9 
27,3 
11,5 
16,7 
13,7 
29,4 
25,1 

4,8 
5,7 
2,6 
4,2 
4,7 
10,2 
3,8 
4,8 
8,0 
2,6 
4,5 
2,5 
9,0 
7,3 
1,7 
7,7 
1,4 
3,9 
3,9 
11,4 
11,0 

3,9 
3,7 
10,9 
11,0 

0% 
0% 
27% 
0% 
18% 
0% 
37% 
0% 
3% 
15% 
12% 
0% 
0% 
4% 
71% 
5% 

0% 
19% 
17% 
0% 

0% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
-3% 
-1% 
-24% 
5% 
-1% 
18% 
-2% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
-1% 
0% 
2% 
4% 
0% 

4,8 
5,7 
2,6 
4,5 
4,0 
8,6 
4,1 
4,8 
8,8 
3,1 
4,3 
2,7 
9,0 
7,0 
1,7 
7,7 

3,9 
3,7 
12,9 
11,0 

13,9 
30,5 
17,6 
20,0 
16,5 
30,0 
19,1 
26,8 
17,2 
26,1 
24,6 
16,0 
16,4 
16,8 
13,2 
30,7 
14,4 
18,7 
13,7 
32,8 
27,6 

4,8 
5,7 
2,6 
4,5 
4,7 
10,2 
4,1 
4,8 
9,0 
3,1 
4,5 
2,7 
9,0 
7,3 
2,3 
7,7 
1,5 
3,9 
3,9 
13,5 
11,0 

13,9 
30,5 
17,6 
20,0 
16,5 
31,1 
19,1 
27,2 
17,6 
26,3 
24,7 
16,0 
16,4 
17,0 
13,2 
30,7 
15,0 
18,7 
13,7 
32,8 
28,0 

4,8 
5,7 
3,3 
4,5 
4,7 
8,6 
5,6 
4,8 
9,2 
3,5 
4,8 
2,7 
9,0 
7,3 
3,3 
8,1 
1,5 
3,9 
4,4 
14,3 
11,0 

13,9 
30,5 
17,8 
20,0 
16,5 
29,5 
19,3 
20,6 
18,1 
26,6 
28,8 
15,7 
16,4 
16,8 
13,2 
30,7 
14,2 
18,7 
14,0 
34,2 
28,0 

0.2% 
0.0% 
25.2% 
0.0% 
17.1% 
0.0% 
36.3% 
0.0% 
4.0% 
12.9% 
11.8% 
0.0% 
0.0% 
4.3% 
94.1% 
5.9% 

0.0% 
18.0% 
11.3% 
0.0% 

0% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
-2% 
1% 
-23% 
5% 
2% 
17% 
-2% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
-1% 
0% 
2% 
4% 
1% 

No data was available for: 

EN 

18 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Bulgaria, Ireland, Latvia: the USP reported that 1kg t&t and 2kg t&t parcels are not available 
  Germany: no provision of data 
 
  Luxembourg: data not available for 2021 

Italy: the USP reported that 1kg t&t and 2kg t&t parcels are not in the scope of the USO 

EN 

19 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
Table 2 non-USP providers – 1kg and 2kg track and trace parcel –Domestic and cross-border tariffs for 2019, 2020, 2021 

1 kg t&t parcel  (in EUR) 

2019 

2020 

2021 

Austria 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Croatia 
Cyprus 
Czech Republic 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Greece 
Hungary 
Ireland 
Italy 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovakia 
Slovenia 
Spain 

Dom. 
10,0 
16,8 
3,6 
5,2 
7,2 
7,6 
31,1 
8,0 
38,7 
37,4 
3,5 
6,3 
6,2 
7,3 
22,5 
9,7 
5,4 
3,9 
5,8 
19,1 
5,6 
10,6 
10,2 
6,6 
6,6 
7,6 

EEA   Dom. 
10,1 
39,5 
17,0 
50,3 
3,5 
43,9 
5,4 
27,7 
7,2 
41,4 
7,9 
54,1 
31,7 
80,9 
8,3 
72,3 
39,9 
85,0 
38,5 
77,6 
4,1 
14,3 
6,3 
44,4 
6,2 
35,2 
17,7 
58,7 
23,1 
43,7 
10,7 
40,3 
5,4 
51,8 
3,9 
13,1 
1,9 
53,3 
19,5 
48,2 
5,3 
58,1 
8,9 
40,1 
10,2 
49,6 
7,0 
69,7 
6,9 
53,6 
7,7 
43,2 

EEA   Dom. 
10,1 
40,3 
17,6 
52,1 
3,5 
41,9 
5,4 
28,6 
7,2 
41,7 
8,3 
47,4 
33,2 
82,2 
8,7 
74,3 
41,9 
89,8 
41,1 
81,4 
4,1 
16,9 
6,2 
46,0 
6,7 
37,0 
12,0 
61,1 
23,9 
45,1 
10,1 
41,4 
5,5 
53,6 
8,1 
13,1 
1,9 
49,8 
19,9 
48,9 
6,2 
61,3 
8,7 
41,2 
10,7 
51,5 
6,4 
74,3 
7,2 
55,3 
8,0 
43,1 

20 

EN 

EEA   Dom. 
40,4 
52,7 
42,7 
33,2 
41,6 
50,2 
83,4 
77,0 
93,0 
84,8 
16,5 
46,9 
35,9 
63,8 
47,1 
42,0 
48,1 
13,5 
45,5 
50,3 
53,7 
41,6 
53,0 
72,7 
57,7 
44,5 

1% 
5% 
-2% 
3% 
0% 
9% 
7% 
10% 
8% 
10% 
17% 
-1% 
7% 
65% 
6% 
4% 
1% 
107% 
-67% 
4% 
10% 
-18% 
5% 
-3% 
8% 
5% 

% diff. 21-19 
EEA  
2% 
5% 
-3% 
20% 
0% 
-7% 
3% 
7% 
9% 
9% 
16% 
6% 
2% 
9% 
8% 
4% 
-7% 
3% 
-15% 
4% 
-8% 
4% 
7% 
4% 
8% 
3% 

2019 

2020 

2021 

% diff. 21-19 

2 kg t&t parcel (in EUR) 

EEA  
47,7 
57,1 
46,2 
35,5 
76,6 
52,4 
103,6 
135,8 
107,0 
94,4 
17,4 
64,6 
45,5 
70,7 
54,1 
53,9 
64,8 
17,4 
63,7 
44,4 
83,6 
56,0 
60,5 
80,0 
63,9 
50,0 

Dom. 
10,3 
17,9 
3,8 
5,8 
7,2 
8,8 
33,5 
9,9 
43,0 
29,2 
4,2 
7,0 
7,3 
12,0 
25,5 
11,5 
6,3 
9,9 
1,9 
17,6 
7,0 
10,4 
9,5 
6,5 
6,8 
10,0 

EEA  
48,2 
57,7 
47,4 
39,8 
76,3 
56,0 
105,7 
87,8 
111,2 
94,8 
14,9 
65,0 
42,0 
73,6 
56,5 
48,6 
57,2 
18,0 
58,1 
46,3 
74,9 
55,8 
65,8 
80,8 
65,6 
55,7 

Dom. 
1% 
10% 
-9% 
3% 
0% 
9% 
7% 
-3% 
8% 
0% 
13% 
-1% 
10% 
65% 
6% 
4% 
6% 
114% 
-67% 
3% 
15% 
-18% 
10% 
-3% 
9% 
16% 

EEA  
3% 
5% 
-2% 
23% 
9% 
-8% 
4% 
-1% 
12% 
1% 
0% 
4% 
-2% 
9% 
8% 
4% 
-9% 
3% 
-14% 
6% 
-6% 
-22% 
5% 
5% 
6% 
17% 

Dom. 
10,1 
16,2 
4,2 
5,7 
7,2 
8,0 
31,4 
10,3 
39,7 
29,2 
3,7 
7,1 
6,7 
7,3 
24,0 
11,1 
6,0 
4,6 
5,8 
17,0 
6,1 
12,6 
8,6 
6,6 
6,3 
8,6 

EEA  
46,8 
55,0 
48,3 
32,3 
70,2 
60,8 
101,7 
88,6 
98,9 
93,9 
14,9 
62,6 
43,1 
67,7 
52,4 
46,7 
62,6 
17,4 
67,8 
43,8 
79,7 
71,4 
62,6 
76,7 
62,1 
47,7 

Dom. 
10,2 
17,3 
3,8 
5,8 
7,2 
8,3 
32,1 
9,5 
40,9 
29,2 
4,1 
7,1 
6,8 
17,7 
24,7 
12,1 
6,0 
4,6 
1,9 
17,4 
5,9 
10,6 
8,8 
7,6 
6,6 
8,9 

  EN 

 
 
 
  
8% 
Sweden 
Source: data from EU tariff transparency tool, covering all Member States 

74,7 

76,3 

28,3 

71,4 

27,1 

26,3 

7% 

23,4 

73,2 

24,7 

78,2 

25,1 

78,0 

7% 

7% 

Limitations: 
Not all postal service delivery providers are represented, as explained in methodology 
France, Luxembourg: incomplete dataset for 2021 on date of extraction 

EN 

21 

  EN