Legislative initiative (“EU Delivery Act”) to replace 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/EC and Directive 2008/6/EC, and Regulation (EU) 2018/644 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 April 2018 on cross-border parcel delivery services
Date: 2026-05-07
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: single market

Factual summary of contributions received during the public 
consultation on the EU Delivery Act Impact Assessment 

This summary cannot in any circumstance be regarded as the official position of the Commission and 
its  services.  Contributions  to  the  public  consultation  cannot  be  interpreted  as  representative  of 
European or national populations or population subgroups or stakeholder types. 

The  purpose  of  the  public  consultation  was  to  seek  feedback  from  stakeholders  on  the  possible 
limitations  of  the  current  EU  postal  framework,  as  well  as  the  objectives  and  the  policy  options 
envisaged for its modernisation, to inform the preparation of the future EU Delivery Act. The public 
consultation (PC) ran from 11 December 2025 to 8 March 2026 and received 147 responses and 58 
position papers. An additional three responses and two position papers were received after the closing 
of the public consultation. The total number of responses was thus 150 and 60 position papers. It is to 
be noted that not all respondents answered all questions and, therefore, n/N differs for each question. 

1.  Respondent profile 

The majority of responses were from companies (26%, 39/150), public authorities (22%, 33/150) and 
business  associations  (18%,  27/150).  Most  company  answers  came  from  large  companies  (>250 
employees) (82%, 32/39). Most respondents were from the EU (94%, 141/150) with all Member States 
represented. Belgium was the most represented (15%, 22/150), followed by Germany (10%, 15/150), 
Poland (7%, 11/150) and France (7%, 10/150). Responses were received from third countries including 
Norway (2%, 3/150) and the US (1%, 2/150) as well as Albania, Georgia, Liechtenstein and the UK (1 
each).  

2.  Problem identification 

The majority of respondents rated all features of domestic postal services as having relevance (very 
relevant/relevant)  with  reliability  being  the  most  relevant  (58%,  29/50).  When  asked  about 
satisfaction  with  domestic  parcel  services,  most  respondents  reported  being  satisfied  (very 
satisfied/satisfied)  with  the  pick-up/drop-off  places  (65%,  33/51),  track  and  trace  services  (63%, 
32/51) and reliability (60%, 30/51). Respondents reported the highest levels of dissatisfaction (very 
dissatisfied/not satisfied) with ease of complaint resolution if parcel is late/lost/damaged (30%, 15/50) 
and clear terms of service/contract (24%, 12/49).  

There was a higher level of dissatisfaction regarding prices for cross-border (30%, 14/47) compared to 
domestic services (16%, 8/51). Respondents still reported being satisfied with track-and-trace services 
(59%, 27/46) and pick-up/drop-off (47%, 22/46). In what concerns concrete experiences with cross 
border delivery postal services, respondents reported problems with cross-border deliveries taking 
longer  than  expected  (47%,  22/47)  and  tracking  information  being  inconsistent  (32%,  15/47). 
However,  a  significant  proportion  of  respondents  did  not  experience  any  problems  when  sending 
goods cross border (30%, 14/47)1.  

When asked if the postal delivery sector in the EU operates in conditions of fair competition, there 
were mixed results. Most respondents reported that there was fair competition for parcel deliveries 
but  not  for  letter  mail,  however  this  varied  by  type  of  respondent.  Regarding  domestic  parcel 
deliveries,  all  businesses  that  were  Universal  Service  Providers  (USPs)  believed  there  was  fair 
competition  (100%,  13/13)  as  well  as  the  majority  of  public  authorities  (81%,  22/27).  However, 
businesses that were other postal operators did not think there was fair competition (70%, 7/10) as 
well as trade unions (95%, 19/20) and consumer organisations (60%, 3/5). Similar responses were also 

1 It is noted that the majority of respondents were representatives from postal operators, public authorities and 

business associations and would not respond primarily as users of the postal services. 

Factual Summary Report, Page 1 

 
seen for cross-border parcel deliveries, however the majority of businesses that were other postal 
operators also believed there was fair competition on this segment (80%, 8/10). The majority of nearly 
all respondent groups reported that there was not fair competition in national letter mail, except USP 
businesses who thought there was fair competition (85%, 11/13).  

Respondents  reported  the  lack  of  fair  competition  likely2  to  result  in  the  following  impacts.  The 
percentage who reported the impact of these likelihoods being high is also reported: 

• 

Issues with market efficiency and competition, for example dominance of certain operators, 
reduced choice and quality, increased prices, inefficient allocation of resources (high-cost 
production, environmental damages, traffic congestion) (68%, 65/96). High impact (63%, 
60/95). 

•  Pricing & costs issues, for example, excessive prices for users, lack of transparency/clarity 

regarding price (64%, 61/96). High impact (56%, 53/95). 

•  Problems with the financing of the universal service, for example, insufficient funding for the 

• 

universal service, more state aid required (63%, 60/95). High impact (53%, 50/94) 
Limitations of access and inclusion, for example, reduced postal delivery service in rural 
areas, limited choice for vulnerable population (60%, 58/96). High impact (61%, 58/95). 

3.  Objectives 

Respondents were asked to what extent they agree with a range of statements regarding the need for 
a future Universal Service Obligation (USO). The majority of respondents agreed that “a minimum EU-
level universal service obligation is important to guarantee postal delivery for all everywhere” (80%, 
85/106). All trade unions strongly agreed with this statement (100%, 18/18) as well as the majority of 
public authorities (83% 25/30). Businesses associations were more likely to somewhat disagree (11%, 
2/19) and were the only group to strongly disagree (11%, 2/19).  

Respondents disagreed3 with the following statements4: 

•  Reliable  delivery  to  rural  and  remote  areas  could  be  ensured  without  a  universal  service 

obligation (65%, 69/106) 

•  Affordable delivery services for everyone could be provided by the market without a universal 

services obligation (63%, 67/106) 

•  Proximity  and  accessible  pick-up/drop-off  locations  for  all  could  be  ensured  without 

regulatory intervention (49%, 52/106) 

Respondents were also asked their view on the appropriateness5, efficiency and importance of the 
postal network in the future for providing services other than letter and parcel delivery. The top results 
of each are reported below: 

•  Appropriate:  Delivery  of 

impaired  (78%,  68/87);  Secure  physical 
communications  (74%,  N=87);  Government  services  (73%,  63/86).  On  the  other  hand,  the 
postal  network  was  seen  as  not  appropriate  at  all  for  Delivery  of  food  (42%,  37/88)  and 
groceries purchased online (28%, 25/89). 

items  for  visually 

•  Efficient: Delivery of items for visually impaired (65%, 55/84); Secure physical communications 
62%, 52/84); Government services (64%, 53/83). Delivery of food was reported as inefficient 
(53%, 45/85) as well as groceries purchased online (34%, 29/86). 

2 Includes those who reported “very likely” and “likely” 
3 Includes “somewhat disagreed” and “strongly disagreed” 
4 Percentages are based on those that responded to each statement. 
5 The top two categories are combined for each, e.g. Appropriate = very appropriate + appropriate.  

Factual Summary Report, Page 2 

 
 
• 

Important: Delivery of items for visually impaired (78%, 39/50); Government services (78%, 
39/50); Network of last resort for communication and delivery in case of crisis (77%, 40/52). 
Delivery of food was reported as unimportant in this context (56%, 23/50), as well as groceries 
purchased online (34%, 17/50) 

The  majority  of  respondents  (82%,  107/130)  reported  that  a  resilient  and  secure  postal  delivery 
network  would  be  needed  in  cases  of  natural  disaster,  pandemic  or  conflict  where  digital 
communications would be unavailable.  

Respondents reported the following elements as disproportionate in terms of admin burden: 

•  Reporting and data collection obligations (preparing and submitting reports or data)  (35%, 

33/94) 

•  Delivery frequency obligation (26%, 24/94) 
•  Measurement of quality of service for EU cross-border mail (24%, 23/94) 

22%  (21/94)  reported  that  they  were  “not  sure”  and  16%  (15/94)  reported  that  there  were  no 
requirements that were disproportionate. 

4.  Possible scope 

The  majority  of  respondents  reported  that  the  EU  Delivery  Act  should  better  distinguish  between 
delivery of items of correspondence and delivery of goods (73%, 95/131). Those that opposed this 
distinction were typically e-commerce or delivery platforms (100%, 7/7) and consumer organisations 
(80%, 4/5). Respondents were also asked what services should be part of the USO and asked to rank 
them from very important to not important at all. Private correspondence (53%, 62/116), registered 
correspondence (53%, 61/116) and government correspondence (50%, 58/116) were ranked as the 
most important, whereas delivery of food, groceries and medical supplies ranked lowest. 

The most important features of the delivery service should be coverage of the territory and delivery 
of letters to the door. Respondents were also asked what features should be set at EU level. The top 
three responses were: 

•  Minimum quality levels (speed and reliability) for delivery of items of correspondence (71%, 

57/80) 

•  Minimum weekly pick-up and delivery frequency for items of correspondence (59%, 47/80) 
•  Minimum quality levels (speed and reliability) for delivery of goods (45%, 36/80) 

Respondents  were  also  asked  about  the  number  of  days  per  week  items  should  be  delivered 
domestically. The most common responses are presented below: 

• 

• 

• 

Items of correspondence: minimum 5 days per week or more (31%, 30/98); minimum 3 days 
per week (26%, 25/98) 
Items containing goods: minimum 5 days per week or more (35%, 33/96); at least 3 days/week 
in rural areas and at least 5 days per week in urban areas (19%, 18/96) 
Items for the blind and vulnerable: minimum 5 days per week or more (41%, 40/97); minimum 
3 days per week (21%, 20/97) 

•  Periodicals: minimum 5 days per week or more (20%, 19/96); minimum 3 days per week (20%, 

19/96) 

The majority of respondents reported that within the universal postal delivery of goods, users should 
have the flexibility to choose the delivery location (37%, 46/123) and 26% (32/123) reported that the 
delivery  should  be  to the door.  Respondents  were  also  asked  their  expected  speed of  delivery  for 
domestic items of correspondence/items containing goods, results are presented below. 

Factual Summary Report, Page 3 

Respondents  were  asked  about  a  range  of  different  potential  policy  options  and  their  associated 
impacts on users (households and businesses) as well as costs for postal operators. Respondents were 
asked to report these on a Likert scale from very beneficial to very detrimental. The different possible 
measures are presented in the chart below as well as the number of responses to each policy option. 
Strengthening the quality requirements for goods ranked highest, especially for cross-border delivery, 
but also domestic, followed by maintaining the current level of universal service and adapting it to 
each country’s specificities.  

Costs were reported to increase for the majority of policy measures, including maintaining the current 
universal service. 

Factual Summary Report, Page 4 

 
 
 
Respondents  were  asked  how  the  financing  of  the  USO  could  be  organised  to  ensure  its  future 
sustainability. The majority reported that it should be financed entirely from public funding from the 
government  (68%,  62/91)  and  were  opposed  to  most  of  the  other  measures  proposed,  such  as 
financing by users through more expensive services, or by contributions from operators, e-retailers, 
marketplaces, and other business users. 

Respondents  agreed  with  suggested  measures  at  EU  level  to  improve  user  complaint  handling  in 
delivery of goods and were opposed to complaint handling being left to Member States (52%, 65/126) 
or the market to decide (71%, 89/126). This did vary by respondent type with USP businesses more 
likely to oppose the presented measures.  

Respondents  were  also  asked  what  requirements  needed  simplification  and  which  required 
harmonisation. The top three requirements for simplification were: 

•  Forms for submission of information by and to regulators (44%, 38/86) 
•  Reporting obligations by postal operators to national regulatory authorities (40%, 35/87) 
•  Tariff principles and methodology (40%, 34/86) 

The top three requirements for harmonisation were: 

•  Consumer protection rules (43%, 37/87) 
•  Reporting obligations by postal operators to national regulatory authorities (37%, 32/87) 
•  Data collection, assessment and monitoring obligations by national regulators (34%, 27/80) 

Factual Summary Report, Page 5