CELEX: 62006CJ0220
Language: en
Date: 2007-12-18
Title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 December 2007.#Asociación Profesional de Empresas de Reparto y Manipulado de Correspondencia v Administración General del Estado.#Reference for a preliminary ruling: Audiencia Nacional - Spain.#Public procurement - Liberalisation of postal services - Directives 92/50/EEC and 97/67/EC - Articles 43 EC, 49 EC and 86 EC - National legislation allowing public authorities to conclude agreements for the provision of both reserved and non-reserved postal services with a publicly owned company, namely the provider of universal postal service in the Member State concerned, without regard to the rules governing the award of public service contracts.#Case C-220/06.

Case C-220/06
      Asociación Profesional de Empresas de Reparto y Manipulado de Correspondencia
      v
      Administración General del Estado
      (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional)
      (Public procurement – Liberalisation of postal services – Directives 92/50/EEC and 97/67/EC − Articles 43 EC, 49 EC and 86 EC – National legislation allowing public authorities to conclude agreements for the provision of both reserved and non-reserved
         postal services with a publicly owned company, namely the provider of universal postal service in the Member State concerned,
         without regard to the rules governing the award of public service contracts)
      
      Opinion of Advocate General Bot delivered on 20 September 2007 
      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 18 December 2007 
      Summary of the Judgment
      1.     Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Freedom to provide services – Provision of postal services reserved
            in conformity with Directive 97/67 – Award, without regard to the rules governing the award of public service contracts, to
            a wholly State-owned public limited company, which is the provider of the universal postal service 
      (Arts 43 EC and 49 EC; European Parliament and Council Directive 97/67)
      2.     Approximation of laws – Procedures for the award of public service contracts – Directive 92/50 – Provision of postal services
            not reserved within the meaning of Directive 97/67 – Award, without regard to the rules governing the award of public service
            contracts, to a wholly State-owned public limited company, which is the provider of the universal postal service
      (Council Directive 92/50; European Parliament and Council Directive 97/67)
      3.     Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Freedom to provide services – Provision of postal services not
            reserved within the meaning of Directive 97/67 – Award, without regard to the rules governing the award of public service
            contracts, to a wholly State-owned public limited company, which is the provider of the universal postal service
      (Arts 12 EC, 43 EC, 49 EC and 86 EC; European Parliament and Council Directive 97/67)
      1.     Community law must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State that allows public authorities to entrust,
         without regard to the rules governing the award of public service contracts, the provision of postal services reserved, in
         a manner consistent with Directive 97/67 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services
         and the improvement of quality of service, to a public limited company whose capital is wholly state-owned and which, in that
         State, is the provider of the universal postal service.
      
      Article 7 of that directive permits Member States to reserve some postal services for the provider(s) of the universal postal
         service to the extent necessary to ensure the maintenance of that service. Consequently, in so far as postal services are,
         in a manner consistent with that directive, reserved for a single universal service provider, such services are by necessity
         not subject to competition, given that no other economic operator is authorised to offer those services. Therefore, Community
         rules in the field of public procurement, which have as their principal objective the free movement of services and the opening-up
         to undistorted competition in all the Member States, cannot be applied. 
      
      (see paras 39-41, operative part 1)
      2.     Directive 92/50 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, as amended by Directive
         2001/78, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State that allows public authorities to entrust, without
         regard to the rules governing the award of public service contracts, the provision of non-reserved postal services within
         the meaning of Directive 97/67 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and
         the improvement of quality of service to a public limited company whose capital is wholly state-owned and which, in that State,
         is the provider of the universal postal service, in so far as the contracts to which that legislation applies reach the relevant
         threshold as provided for in Article 7(1) of Directive 92/50 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public
         service contracts, as amended by Directive 2001/78, and constitute contracts within the meaning of Article 1(a) of Directive
         92/50, as amended by Directive 2001/78, concluded in writing and for a price, rather than a unilateral administrative measure
         creating obligations solely for the provider, and which depart significantly from the normal conditions of a commercial offer
         made by the provider, which is a matter for the national court to establish.
      
      (see paras 54, 69, operative part 2)
      3.     Articles 43 EC, 49 EC and 86 EC, as well as the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination by reason of nationality
         and transparency, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State that allows public authorities to entrust,
         without regard to the rules governing the award of public service contracts, the provision of non-reserved postal services
         within the meaning of Directive 97/67 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services
         and the improvement of quality of service to a public limited company whose capital is wholly state-owned and which, in that
         State, is the provider of universal postal services, in so far as the contracts to which that legislation applies do not reach
         the relevant threshold as provided for in Article 7(1) of Directive 92/50 relating to the coordination of procedures for the
         award of public service contracts, as amended by Directive 2001/78, and do not in actual fact constitute a unilateral administrative
         measure creating obligations solely for the provider of the universal postal service and departing significantly from the
         normal conditions of a commercial offer made by the latter, which are matters for the national court to establish.
      
      Moreover, Article 86(2) EC cannot be used to justify such national legislation in so far as it concerns non-reserved postal
         services within the meaning of Directive 97/67.
      
      Directive 97/67 implements Article 86(2) EC with regard to the possibility of reserving certain postal services to the provider
         of the universal postal service. Member States do not have the option of extending the services reserved for the universal
         postal service provider pursuant to Article 7 of Directive 97/67, as such extension goes against the purpose of the Directive,
         which aims to establish gradual and controlled liberalisation in the postal sector, when, within the framework of Directive
         97/67, account is taken of whether, in order to enable the universal postal service to be carried out under economically acceptable
         conditions, it is necessary to reserve some postal services to the provider of that universal postal service. 
      
      (see paras 80-82, 85, 88, operative part 3)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber)
      18 December 2007 (*)
      
      (Public procurement – Liberalisation of postal services – Directives 92/50/EEC and 97/67/EC − Articles 43 EC, 49 EC and 86 EC – National legislation allowing public authorities to conclude agreements for the provision of both reserved and non-reserved
         postal services with a publicly owned company, namely the provider of universal postal service in the Member State concerned,
         without regard to the rules governing the award of public service contracts)
      
      In Case C‑220/06,
      REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC, from the Audiencia Nacional (Spain), made by decision of 15 March
         2006, received at the Court on 15 May 2006, in the proceedings
      
      Asociación Profesional de Empresas de Reparto y Manipulado de Correspondencia
      v
      Administración General del Estado,
      THE COURT (First Chamber),
      composed of P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, A. Borg Barthet, M. Ilešič and E. Levits, Judges,
      Advocate General: Y. Bot,
      Registrar: M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator,
      having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 14 June 2007,
      after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
      –       the Asociación Profesional de Empresas de Reparto y Manipulado de Correspondencia, by J.M. Piqueras Ruíz, abogado,
      –       the Spanish Government, by F. Díez Moreno, acting as Agent,
      –       the Belgian Government, by A. Hubert, acting as Agent,
      –       the Austrian Government, by M. Fruhmann, acting as Agent,
      –       the Commission of the European Communities, by X. Lewis and K. Simonsson, acting as Agents, assisted by C. Fernández and I.
         Moreno-Tapia Rivas, abogadas,
      
      after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 20 September 2007,
      gives the following
      Judgment
      1       The reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC, read in conjunction with Article
         86 EC, in the context of the liberalisation of postal services and in light of Community rules governing public service contracts.
         
      
      2       This reference has been made in the course of proceedings between the Asociación Profesional de Empresas de Reparto y Manipulado
         de Correspondencia (Trade Association of Mail Delivery and Handling Companies, ‘the Asociación Profesional’) and the Administración
         General del Estado, Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte (State administration, Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport,
         ‘the Ministerio’), concerning the latter’s decision to award, without a public call for tenders, postal services to the Sociedad
         Estatal Correos y Telégrafos SA (Public corporation for postal and telegraphical services, ‘Correos’), which is the provider
         of the universal postal service in Spain.
      
       Legal context
       Community legislation
       Directive 97/67/EC
      3       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 (OJ 1998 L 15, p. 14) establishes,
         pursuant to its Article 1, common rules concerning, inter alia, the provision of a universal postal service within the Community
         and the criteria defining the services which may be reserved for universal service providers.
      
      4       Pursuant to Article 3(1) of Directive 97/67, Member States are to ensure that users enjoy the right to a universal service
         involving the permanent provision of a postal service of specified quality at all points in their territory at affordable
         prices for all users. 
      
      5       In accordance with Article 3(4) of Directive 97/67:
      ‘Each Member State shall adopt the measures necessary to ensure that the universal service includes the following minimum
         facilities:
      
      –       the clearance, sorting, transport and distribution of postal items up to two kilograms,
      –       the clearance, sorting, transport and distribution of postal packages up to 10 kilograms,
      –       services for registered items and insured items.’
      6       Article 7 of Directive 97/67, which falls under Chapter 3 of the Directive, entitled ‘Harmonisation of the services which
         may be reserved’, provides in paragraphs 1 and 2:
      
      ‘1. To the extent necessary to ensure the maintenance of universal service, the services which may be reserved by each Member
         State for the universal service provider(s) shall be the clearance, sorting, transport and delivery of items of domestic correspondence,
         whether by accelerated delivery or not, the price of which is less than five times the public tariff for an item of correspondence
         in the first weight step of the fastest standard category where such category exists, provided that they weigh less than 350
         grams … .
      
      2. To the extent necessary to ensure the maintenance of universal service, cross-border mail and direct mail may continue
         to be reserved within the price and weight limits laid down in paragraph 1.’
      
       Directive 92/50/EEC
      7       According to Article 1(a) of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the
         award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1), as amended by Commission Directive 2001/78/EC of 13 September 2001
         (OJ 2001 L 285, p. 1, ‘Directive 92/50’), ‘public service contracts’ means contracts for pecuniary interest concluded in writing
         between a service provider and a contracting authority, to the exclusion of contracts listed in subparagraphs (i) to (ix)
         of that provision.
      
      8       In accordance with Article 1(b) of Directive 92/50, ‘contracting authorities’ means ‘the State, regional or local authorities,
         bodies governed by public law, associations formed by one or more of such authorities or bodies governed by public law.’ Subparagraph
         (c) of Article (1) defines ‘service provider’ as ‘any natural or legal person, including a public body, which offers services’.
      
      9       Article 3(2) of Directive 92/50 specifies that contracting authorities are to ensure that there is no discrimination between
         different service providers.
      
      10     Article 6 of Directive 92/50 reads as follows:
      ‘This Directive shall not apply to public service contracts awarded to an entity which is itself a contracting authority within
         the meaning of Article 1(b) on the basis of an exclusive right which it enjoys pursuant to a published law, regulation or
         administrative provision which is compatible with the [EC] Treaty.’
      
      11     Subparagraph (ii) of the second indent of Article 7(1)(a) of Directive 92/50, read in combination with category 4 in Annex
         I A to the same Directive, provides that it applies to public service contracts covering transport of mail by land and by
         air which are awarded by the contracting authorities listed in Article 1(b) of Directive 92/50, other than those referred
         to in Annex I to Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts
         (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 1), and where the estimated value net of VAT is not less than the equivalent in euros of 200 000 SDR [special
         drawing rights]. 
      
      12     Article 7(5) of Directive 92/50 provides:
      ‘In the case of contracts which do not specify a total price, the basis for calculating the estimated contract value shall
         be:
      
      –       in the case of fixed-term contracts, where their term is 48 months or less, the total contract value for its duration;
      –       in the case of contracts of indefinite duration or with a term of more than 48 months, the monthly instalment multiplied by
         48.’
      
      13     In accordance with Article 8 of Directive 92/50, contracts which have as their object services listed in Annex I A to the
         Directive shall be awarded in accordance with the provisions of Titles III to VI of the Directive, which means, in particular,
         that they must be awarded by a call for tenders and made the subject of appropriate publicity. 
      
       National legislation
      14     According to Law 24/1998 on the universal postal service and the liberalisation of postal services (Ley 24/1998 del Servicio
         Postal Universal y de Liberalización de los Servicios Postales) of 13 July 1998, which transposes Directive 97/67 into Spanish
         national law, postal services are considered to be services of general interest provided under conditions of free competition.
         Only the universal postal service is considered to be a public service or is subject to public-service obligations. Article
         18 of Law 24/1998 exclusively reserves some services to the provider of universal postal service.
      
      15     The provider of that universal postal service in Spain, namely Correos, is a public limited company whose capital is wholly
         state-owned.
      
      16     According to Article 11 of the Law on public procurement  (Ley de Contratos de las Administraciones Públicas), the consolidated
         text of which was approved by Royal Legislative Decree 2/2000 (Real Decreto Legislativo 2/2000 por el que se aprueba el texto
         refundido de la Ley de Contratos de las Administraciones Públicas) of 16 June 2000 (‘Law on public procurement’), contracts
         awarded by public authorities shall comply, subject to the exceptions provided for by that Law, with the principles of advertising
         and competition and, in any event, shall always observe the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination. 
      
      17     It is apparent from Article 206(4) of the Law on public procurement that, as a rule, the award of contracts for the provision
         of postal services comes, from a contractual point of view, within the scope of public procurement governed by that Law.
      
      18     However, Article 3(1)(d) of the Law on public procurement excludes from its scope of application cooperation agreements which,
         in accordance with the specific provisions governing them, are concluded by the administration with natural or legal persons
         governed by private law, in so far as the subject-matter of such agreements does not fall within the scope of public procurement
         governed by the said Law or by administrative rules. 
      
      19     According to the Audiencia Nacional’s analysis of the legal context in which the case before it is to be placed, such a cooperation
         agreement is a legal transaction which is not subject to the statutory rules governing public procurement and, therefore,
         the principles of competitiveness, advertising and free competition which are a feature of the sphere of public procurement
         do not apply to such a transaction.
      
      20     Article 58 of Law 14/2000 concerning Tax, Administrative and Public Order Measure (Ley 14/2000 de medidas Fiscales, Administrativas
         y de Orden Social) of 29 December 2000 (‘Law 14/2000’) provides that public authorities may conclude cooperation agreements
         with Correos such as those referred to in Article 3 of the Law on public procurement, in order to provide services connected
         with the objects of that company.
      
      21     According to the findings of the Audiencia Nacional, having regard to the objects of Correos as defined in Article 58 of Law
         14/2000, the possibility of concluding such cooperation agreements is not limited to non-liberalised or reserved postal services,
         but covers the management and operation of any postal service. Therefore, the possibility of concluding cooperation agreements
         is not restricted to the universal postal service and does not, within that universal postal service, distinguish services
         that are reserved from those that are not.
      
      22     In addition, the Audiencia Nacional states that, in accordance with Article 58 of Law 14/2000, Correos is under an obligation
         to provide certain postal services. Among Correos’ duties is that of providing any services connected with its company objects
         that may be entrusted to it by the public authorities. Therefore, one of the parties lacks the intention to conclude a contract.
      
       The dispute in the main proceedings and the question referred for a preliminary ruling
      23     At the end of a negotiated procedure without a public call for tenders, the Ministerio and Correos signed a cooperation agreement
         on 6 June 2002 for the provision of postal and telegraphical services (Convenio de colaboración para la prestación de servicios
         postales y telegráficos, ‘the Cooperation Agreement’). 
      
      24     In accordance with the Cooperation Agreement, Correos is to provide postal and telegraphical services for the Ministerio covering
         the following items: 
      
      –      letters (ordinary, registered and express), local, inter-city and international, with no weight or size limit;
      –      packages (postal, blue and international) with no weight or size limit;
      –       the express national postal service and international EMS (‘Express Mail Service’), with no weight or size limit, and
      –      delivery of books, library material, magazines and the Ministry’s Official Gazette nationally (local and inter-city) and internationally
         (by land and air), with no weight or size limit.
      
      25     Since it depends on turnover, the financial value of the services provided is not specified. The estimate given before the
         Audiencia Nacional, which is not disputed, is that of a sum of more than EUR 12 020.42 per annum.
      
      26     The Cooperation Agreement was concluded for an indefinite term and was still in force at the date of the order for reference.
      27     The Asociación Profesional brought an appeal before the Ministerio in which it challenged the administrative decision awarding,
         by means of the Cooperation Agreement, liberalised postal services without a public call for tenders. 
      
      28     By decision of 20 March 2003, the Ministerio rejected that appeal on the grounds that the procedure it had adopted to award
         the postal services was based on the existence of a cooperation agreement, which fell outside the rules governing public procurement
         and was therefore not subject to the rules relating to advertising and free competition.
      
      29     In this regard, the Ministerio took the view that it had not concluded a contract with Correos at all, but that the latter
         provided its services on the basis of a cooperation agreement concluded pursuant to Article 3(1)(d) of the Law on public procurement
         and Article 58(2)(5) of Law 14/2000.
      
      30     It is the Ministerio’s rejection decision of 20 March 2003 which is the subject of the Asociación Profesional’s action before
         the Audiencia Nacional. 
      
      31     According to the Audiencia Nacional, the outcome of the case before it depends on the interpretation of Community law. The
         Court may hold that the use of cooperation agreements is incompatible with the rules on advertising and free competition that
         apply to the award of public contracts, by taking the view that such agreements can only be used in the sphere of postal services
         reserved by law to the universal service provider, or that they are incompatible with the abovementioned rules, also in that
         sphere. Should the Court find accordingly, it would have to be concluded that a cooperation agreement like that in issue in
         this case is contrary to law, and its content would be null and void, either in its entirety or only in so far as it extends
         beyond those postal services for which the Court considers it could lawfully be used.
      
      32     In those circumstances, the Audiencia Nacional decided to stay proceedings and refer to the Court the following question for
         a preliminary ruling:
      
      ‘Are Articles 43 [EC] and 49 […] EC, in conjunction with Article 86 thereof, as applied within the framework of the liberalisation
         of the postal services established by Directives 1997/67/EC and 2002/39/EC and within the framework of the rules governing
         public procurement introduced by the ad hoc directives, to be interpreted as precluding an agreement whose subject-matter
         includes the provision of postal services, both reserved and non-reserved and, therefore, liberalised, concluded between a
         department of the State Administration and a state company whose capital is wholly state-owned and which is furthermore, the
         universal postal service provider?’ 
      
       On the question for a preliminary ruling
      33     As a preliminary point, it must be held that, even though the Audiencia Nacional refers in its question to Directive 2002/39/EC
         of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 amending Directive 97/67 with regard to the further opening
         to competition of Community postal services (OJ 2002 L 176, p. 21), that directive cannot be applied in the main proceedings.
         Pursuant to Article 2(1) of that directive, Member States were given until 31 December 2002 to transpose the directive into
         national law.
      
       Admissibility
      34     The Spanish Government considers that the question for a preliminary ruling is inadmissible in as far as, in actual fact,
         the Court is being asked whether the Cooperation Agreement complies with the directives on the award of public service contracts
         and the liberalisation of postal services, which is a question that falls under the jurisdiction of the national court.
      
      35     It must be held at the outset that neither the wording of the question referred nor the necessary grounds supporting it, as
         set out in the order for reference, indicate that the Audiencia Nacional asks the Court to decide whether the Cooperation
         Agreement complies with Community law.
      
      36     In addition, it must be observed that whilst the Court does not have jurisdiction under Article 234 EC to apply the rules
         of Community law to a particular case or to judge the compatibility of provisions of national law with those rules, it may
         provide a national court with all the elements relating to the interpretation of Community law which may be useful to it in
         assessing the effects of the provisions of that law (see Case C‑181/00 Flightline [2002] ECR I‑6139, paragraph 20).
      
      37     Therefore, the reference for a preliminary ruling must be considered to be admissible. 
       Substance
      38     By its question, the Audiencia Nacional asks, essentially, whether Community law must be interpreted as precluding legislation
         of a Member State that allows public authorities to entrust, without regard to the rules governing the award of public service
         contracts, the provision of both reserved and non-reserved postal services to a public limited company whose capital is wholly
         state-owned and which is, in that State, the provider of the universal postal service.
      
       Reserved postal services within the meaning of Directive 97/67
      39     As a preliminary point, it must be recalled that Article 7 of Directive 97/67 permits Member States to reserve some postal
         services for the provider(s) of the universal postal service to the extent necessary to ensure the maintenance of that service.
         Consequently, in so far as postal services are, in a manner consistent with that directive, reserved for a single universal
         service provider, such services are by necessity not subject to competition, given that no other economic operator is authorised
         to offer those services. 
      
      40     The fact remains that, as regards such reserved services, Community rules in the field of public procurement, which have as
         their principal objective the free movement of services and the opening-up to undistorted competition in all the Member States,
         cannot be applied (Case C‑26/03 Stadt Halleand RPL Lochau [2005] ECR I‑1, paragraph 44, and Case C‑340/04 Carbotermo and Consorzio Alisei [2006] ECR I‑4137, paragraph 58).
      
      41     Therefore, the answer to the question referred must be that Community law must be interpreted as not precluding legislation
         of a Member State that allows public authorities to entrust, without regard to the rules governing the award of public service
         contracts, the provision of postal services reserved, in a manner consistent with Directive 97/67, to a public limited company
         whose capital is wholly state-owned and which, in that State, is the provider of the universal postal service.
      
       Non-reserved postal services within the meaning of Directive 97/67
      42     It is only in regard to postal services that are non-reserved within the meaning of Directive 97/67 that it must be examined
         whether, in concluding a cooperation agreement like the one in issue in the main proceedings, Community rules on public procurement
         must be observed.
      
      –       Directive 92/50
      43     In the first place, it must be examined whether an agreement like the one in issue in the main proceedings came within the
         scope of the directive that is relevant to the public procurement of postal services in the period relevant to the case before
         the Audiencia Nacional, namely Directive 92/50.
      
      44     Directive 92/50 requires that the award of the public service contracts to which it applies must comply with certain requirements
         concerning procedure and advertising.
      
      45     According to the actual wording of Article 1(a) of Directive 92/50, a public service contract presupposes the existence of
         a contract for pecuniary interest concluded in writing between a service provider and a contracting authority within the meaning
         of Article 1(b).
      
      46     As the Advocate General observed in Point 63 of his Opinion, the Ministerio is indeed a contracting authority and Correos
         a service provider within the meaning of the provisions referred to in the preceding paragraph. In addition, it is not contested
         that the Cooperation Agreement was concluded in writing and for pecuniary interest.
      
      47     However, given that the Audiencia Nacional only states that the value of the services provided under the said contract exceeds
         EUR 12 020.42 per annum, this raises the question whether that figure reaches the threshold of 200 000 SDR laid down in subparagraph
         (ii) of the second indent of Article 7(1)(a) of Directive 92/50, which, in the period relevant to the main proceedings, amounted
         to EUR 249 681.
      
      48     It is for the Audiencia Nacional to determine whether, in the light of the national provisions that transpose the second indent
         of Article 7(5) of Directive 92/50, the threshold of EUR 249 681 is reached.
      
      49     Assuming that that threshold is reached, this raises the question whether the Cooperation Agreement is in fact a contract
         within the meaning of Article 1(a) of Directive 92/50. The Spanish Government submits that the agreement is not contractual
         but instrumental, given that Correos is unable to refuse to enter into such an agreement, but is under an obligation to accept.
      
      50     In this respect, it must be noted that the definition of a public service contract is a matter of Community law, with the
         result that the classification of the Cooperation Agreement under Spanish law is irrelevant for the purposes of determining
         whether it falls within the scope of Directive 92/50 (see, to that effect, Case C-264/03 Commission v France [2005] ECR I-8831, paragraph 36, and Case C-382/05 Commission v Italie [2007] ECR I-0000, paragraph 30).
      
      51     Admittedly, in paragraph 54 of its judgment in Case C-295/05 Asemfo [2007] ECR I-0000, the Court held that the requirement for the application of the directives governing the award of public
         service contracts relating to the existence of a contract was not met where the State company in issue in the case that gave
         rise to the judgment had no choice as to the acceptance of a demand made by the competent authorities in question or as to
         the tariff for its services, a matter which was for the referring court to establish. 
      
      52     However, that reasoning must be read in its specific context. It follows on from the finding that, under Spanish legislation,
         that State company is an instrument and a technical service of the General State Administration and of the administration
         of each of the Autonomous Communities concerned, the Court having already held, in a context different from that in the case
         that gave rise to the judgment in Asemfo,  that being an instrument and technical service of the Spanish Administration, the company in issue is required to implement
         only work entrusted to it by the General Administration of that State, the Autonomous Communities or the public bodies subject
         to them (Asemfo, paragraphs 49 and 53). 
      
      53     Correos, as the provider of the universal postal service, carries out an entirely different task, which means in particular
         that its customers consist of any person wishing to use the universal postal service. The mere fact that that company has
         no choice as to the acceptance of a demand made by the Ministerio or as to the tariff for its services cannot automatically
         entail that no contract was concluded between the two entities. 
      
      54     In fact, such a situation is not necessarily different from that which arises where a private customer wishes to use services
         provided by Correos coming within the scope of the universal postal service, since it is in the very nature of the task of
         a provider of that service that, in such a situation, he is also required to provide the services requested and must do so,
         if necessary, for a fixed tariff or, in any event, for a price that is transparent and non-discriminatory. There is no question
         that such a relationship must be called contractual. It is only if the agreement between Correos and the Ministerio were in
         actual fact a unilateral administrative measure solely creating obligations for Correos ­– and as such a measure departing
         significantly from the normal conditions of a commercial offer made by that company, a matter which is for the Audiencia Nacional
         to establish – that it would have to be held that there is no contract and that, consequently, Directive 92/50 could not apply.
      
      55     In the course of that examination, the Audiencia Nacional will have to consider, in particular, whether Correos is able to
         negotiate with the Ministerio the actual content of the services it has to provide and the tariffs to be applied to those
         services and whether, as regards non-reserved services, the company can free itself from obligations arising under the Cooperation
         Agreement, by giving notice as provided for in that agreement.
      
      56     The other arguments submitted by the Spanish Government to show that a cooperation agreement like the one in issue in the
         main proceedings falls outside the rules on public procurement must also be rejected.
      
      57     The Spanish Government submits, in particular, that the Cooperation Agreement cannot, in any event, be subject to the rules
         on public procurement because the ‘in-house’ criteria laid down in the case-law of the Court are fulfilled.
      
      58     In this regard, it is important to recall that, according to the Court’s settled case-law, a call for tenders, under the directives
         relating to public procurement, is not compulsory, even if the contracting party is an entity legally distinct from the contracting
         authority, where two conditions are met. First, the public authority which is a contracting authority must exercise over the
         distinct entity in question a control which is similar to that which it exercises over its own departments and, second, that
         entity must carry out the essential part of its activities with the local authority or authorities which control it (see Case
         C-107/98 Teckal [1999] ECR I‑8121, paragraph 50; Stadt Halle and RPL Lochau, paragraph 49; Carbotermo and Consorzio Alisei, paragraph 33; and Asemfo, paragraph 55).
      
      59     It is not necessary to analyse in greater detail whether the first of the two conditions referred to in the preceding paragraph
         is fulfilled, given that it is enough to hold that, in the case in the main proceedings, the second condition is not fulfilled.
         It is not contested that Correos, as provider of the universal postal service in Spain, does not carry out the essential part
         of its activities with the Ministerio or with public authorities in general, but that that company provides postal services
         to an unspecified number of customers of that postal service. 
      
      60     The Spanish Government submits however that the relationship between the public authority and a company with exclusive rights
         is, by its very nature, exclusive, which implies a degree of exclusivity that is higher than in the case of ‘essential activity’.
         Correos has an exclusive right because the company is required, pursuant to Article 58 of Law 14/2000, to provide public authorities
         with services connected with its company objects, which includes reserved and non-reserved services.
      
      61     In this respect, it must be held that, assuming that that obligation could  effectively be called an exclusive right, a matter
         which is for the Audiencia Nacional to determine, such a right cannot satisfy, in the context of the analysis that must be
         carried out in relation to the two conditions recalled in paragraph 58 of the present judgment, the requirement that the relevant
         service provider must carry out the essential part of its activities with the entity or the entities that control it.
      
      62     That last requirement is aimed particularly at ensuring that Directive 92/50 remains applicable in the event that an undertaking
         controlled by one or more entities is active in the market and therefore likely to be in competition with other undertakings
         (see, by analogy, Carbotermo and Consorzio Alisei, paragraph 60). It is not contested that Correos is active on the Spanish postal market, where it is, except as regards reserved
         services within the meaning of Directive 97/67, in competition with other businesses active in the postal sector, of which,
         according to the submissions of the Spanish Government, there are approximately 2 000. 
      
      63     Therefore, it must be held that a cooperation agreement like the one in issue in the main proceedings does not fulfil the
         conditions noted in paragraph 58 of the present judgment and cannot on that basis fall outside the scope of Directive 92/50.
         
      
      64     However, the existence of an exclusive right may justify non-application of Directive 92/50 given that, pursuant to Article
         6 of that directive, the Directive ‘shall not apply to public service contracts awarded to an entity which is itself a contracting
         authority within the meaning of Article 1(b) on the basis of an exclusive right which it enjoys pursuant to a published law,
         regulation or administrative provision which is compatible with the Treaty’.
      
      65     Without there being any need to examine whether Correos fulfils the first of those three conditions set out in Article 6 –
         concerning the status of Correos as a contracting authority –, and assuming that Correos enjoys, pursuant to Article 58 of
         Law 14/2000, an exclusive right to provide public authorities with postal services connected with its company objects, it
         is enough to hold that, in any event, the third of those conditions is not met, namely that the provision granting the exclusive
         right must be compatible with the Treaty. 
      
      66     That national provision – assuming that it does confer on the national provider of the universal postal service the exclusive
         right to provide to public authorities the postal services that, pursuant to Article 7 of Directive 97/67, are not reserved,
         and to which this analysis is limited – is incompatible with the purpose of that directive.
      
      67     As is apparent from the case-law of the Court, Member States do not have the option of extending the services reserved for
         the universal postal service provider pursuant to Article 7 of Directive 97/67, as such extension goes against the purpose
         of the Directive, which, according to recital 8, aims to establish gradual and controlled liberalisation in the postal sector
         (Case C‑240/02 Asempre and Asociación Nacional de Empresas de Externalización y Gestión de Envíos y Pequeña Paquetería [2004] ECR I‑2461, paragraph 24).
      
      68     This finding applies not only to reserving a service that is horizontal, in other words reserving a certain type of postal
         service as such, but, in order to ensure the effectiveness of Article 7 of Directive 97/67, also applies to reserving a service
         which is vertical and which concerns, as is the case in the main proceedings, the exclusive provision of postal services to
         certain customers. As the Commission of the European Communities observed, applying the Spanish rules in issue in the main
         proceedings would mean that, in practice, all postal services needed by a Spanish public body could potentially be supplied
         by Correos, to the exclusion of all other postal operators, which would clearly be contrary to the purpose of Directive 97/67.
      
      69     Therefore, the answer to the question referred must be that Directive 92/50 must be interpreted as precluding legislation
         of a Member State that allows public authorities to entrust, without regard to the rules governing the award of public service
         contracts, the provision of non-reserved postal services within the meaning of Directive 97/67 to a public limited company
         whose capital is wholly state-owned and which, in that State, is the provider of the universal postal service, in so far as
         the contracts to which that legislation applies: 
      
      –       reach the relevant threshold as provided for in Article 7(1) of Directive 92/50 and
      –       constitute contracts within the meaning of Article 1(a) of Directive 92/50 concluded in writing for pecuniary interest,
      which are matters for the national court to establish.
      –       Requirements under the Treaty for the award of public service contracts
      70     In so far as the national legislation in issue in the main proceedings applies to contracts that do not reach the relevant
         threshold as provided for in Article 7(1) of Directive 92/50, it must, in the second place, be examined whether such legislation
         meets the requirements under the Treaty for the award of public service contracts. 
      
      71     Although certain contracts are excluded from the scope of Community directives in the field of public procurement, the contracting
         authorities which conclude them are nevertheless bound to comply with the fundamental rules of the Treaty and the principle
         of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality in particular (Case C‑264/03 Commission v France [2005] ECR I‑8831, paragraph 32 and the case-law cited there). 
      
      72     That is particularly the case in relation to public service contracts whose value does not reach the thresholds fixed by Directive
         92/50. The mere fact that the Community legislature considered that the strict special procedures laid down in the directives
         on public procurement are not appropriate in the case of public contracts of small value does not mean that those contracts
         are excluded from the scope of Community law (Order in Case C-59/00 Vestergaard [2001] ECR I-9505, paragraph 19, and Commission v France, paragraph 33).
      
      73     Treaty provisions that specifically apply to public service contracts whose value does not reach the thresholds established
         by Directive 92/50 include, in particular, Articles 43 EC and 49 EC.
      
      74     Besides the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality, the principle of equal treatment of tenderers is also
         to be applied to such public service contracts even in the absence of discrimination on grounds of nationality (see, by analogy,
         Case C‑458/03 Parking Brixen [2005] ECR I‑8585, paragraph 48, and Case C‑410/04 ANAV [2006] ECR I‑3303, paragraph 20).
      
      75     The principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination on grounds of nationality imply, in particular, a duty of transparency
         which enables the contracting public authority to verify that those principles are complied with. That obligation of transparency
         which is imposed on the public authority consists in ensuring, for the benefit of any potential tenderer, a degree of advertising
         sufficient to enable the public service contract to be opened up to competition and the impartiality of procurement procedures
         to be reviewed (see, by analogy, Parking Brixen, paragraph 49, and ANAV, paragraph 21).
      
      76     As a rule, a complete lack of any call for competition in the case of the award of a public service contract like that at
         issue in the main proceedings does not comply with the requirements of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC any more than with the principles
         of equal treatment, non-discrimination and transparency (see, by analogy, Parking Brixen, paragraph 50, and ANAV, paragraph 22).
      
      77     Furthermore, it follows from Article 86(1) EC that the Member States must not maintain in force national legislation which
         permits the award of public service contracts without a call for tenders since such an award infringes Article 43 EC or 49
         EC or the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination and transparency (see, by analogy, Parking Brixen, paragraph 52, and ANAV, paragraph 23).
      
      78     Admittedly, the combined effect of paragraphs (1) and (2) of Article 86 EC is that paragraph (2) of the Article may be relied
         upon to justify the grant by a Member State to an undertaking entrusted with the operation of services of general economic
         interest of special or exclusive rights which are contrary to, inter alia, the provisions of the Treaty, to the extent to
         which performance of the particular task assigned to that undertaking can be assured only through the grant of such rights
         and provided that the development of trade is not affected to such an extent as would be contrary to the interests of the
         Community (Case C‑340/99 TNT Traco [2001] ECR I‑4109, paragraph 52).
      
      79     It is also necessary to point out that an undertaking like Correos, responsible by virtue of the legislation of a Member State
         for securing the universal postal service, constitutes an undertaking entrusted with the operation of services of general
         economic interest for the purposes of Article 86(2) EC (see, to that effect, TNT Traco, paragraph 53). 
      
      80     However, even on the assumption that the duty imposed on Correos, pursuant to Article 58 of Law 14/2000, to provide public
         authorities with services connected with its company objects could be considered to be an exclusive right for the benefit
         of Correos, the fact remains that Article 86(2) EC cannot be used to justify national legislation like that in issue in the
         main proceedings in so far as it concerns non-reserved postal services within the meaning of Directive 97/67. 
      
      81     As the Advocate General observed in paragraph 99 of his Opinion, Directive 97/67 implements Article 86(2) EC with regard to
         the possibility of reserving certain postal services to the provider of the universal postal service. As recalled in paragraph
         67 of this judgment, the Court has already held that Member States do not have the option of extending the services reserved
         for the universal postal service provider pursuant to Article 7 of Directive 97/67, as such extension goes against the purpose
         of the Directive, which aims to establish gradual and controlled liberalisation in the postal sector.
      
      82     In this context, it must be recalled that, within the framework of Directive 97/67, account is taken of whether, in order
         to enable the universal postal service to be carried out under economically acceptable conditions, it is necessary to reserve
         some postal services to the provider of that universal postal service (Case C‑162/06 International Mail Spain [2007] ECR I-0000, paragraph 50).
      
      83     Therefore, as regards non-reserved postal services within the meaning of Directive 97/67, to which this analysis is limited,
         Article 86(2) EC cannot provide the basis for justifying an exclusive right for the provider of the universal postal service
         to provide such services to public authorities.
      
      84     The Spanish Government submits, however, that the Cooperation Agreement cannot be subject to the rules governing the award
         of public service contracts because of its nature, which is instrumental rather than contractual. Correos is unable to refuse
         to enter into a cooperation agreement like the one in issue in the main proceedings, but is under an obligation to accept
         it.
      
      85     In this respect, it must be noted that, as observed in paragraph 54 of this judgment, only if the Cooperation Agreement is
         in actual fact a unilateral administrative measure creating obligations solely for Correos and departing significantly from
         the normal conditions of a commercial offer made by that company – which it is for the Audiencia Nacional to establish – would
         it have to be held that such a contract falls outside the Community rules on the award of public service contract.
      
      86     As regards the argument of the Spanish Government according to which the Cooperation Agreement cannot be subject to the rules
         governing public procurement because it concerns an ‘in-house’ situation, it is admittedly the case that, in the sphere of
         public service contracts, the application of  the rules set out in Articles 12 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC, as well as the general
         principles of which they are the specific expression, is precluded if the control exercised by the contracting public authority
         over the entity to which the contract was awarded is similar to that which the authority exercises over its own departments
         and if that entity carries out the essential part of its activities with the controlling authority (see, by analogy, Parking Brixen, paragraph 62, and ANAV, paragraph 24). 
      
      87     However, as held in paragraph 63 of the present judgment, a cooperation agreement like the one in issue in the main proceedings
         does not fulfil the second of the conditions referred to in the preceding paragraph and therefore cannot, on that basis, fall
         outside the application of the rules set out in Articles 12 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC, as well as the general principles of which
         they are the specific expression. 
      
      88     Therefore, the answer to the question referred must also be that Articles 43 EC, 49 EC and 86 EC, as well as the principles
         of equal treatment, non-discrimination on grounds of nationality and transparency, must be interpreted as precluding legislation
         of a Member State that allows public authorities to entrust, without regard to the rules governing the award of public service
         contracts, the provision of non-reserved postal services within the meaning of Directive 97/67 to a public limited company
         whose capital is wholly state-owned and which, in that State, is the provider of universal postal service, in so far as the
         contracts to which that legislation applies
      
      –      do not reach the relevant threshold as provided for in Article 7(1) of Directive 92/50, and
      –      do not in actual fact constitute a unilateral administrative measure creating obligations solely for the provider of the universal
         postal service and departing significantly from the normal conditions of a commercial offer made by that company,
      
      which are matters for the national court to establish.
       Costs
      89     Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court,
         the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs
         of those parties, are not recoverable.
      
      On those grounds, the Court (First Chamber) hereby rules:
      1.      Community law must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State that allows public authorities to entrust,
            without regard to the rules governing the award of public service contracts, the provision of postal services reserved, in
            a manner consistent with 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, to a public
            limited company whose capital is wholly state-owned and which, in that State, is the provider of the universal postal service.
      2.      Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts,
            as amended by Commission Directive 2001/78/EC of 13 September 2001, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member
            State that allows public authorities to entrust, without regard to the rules governing the award of public service contracts,
            the provision of non-reserved postal services within the meaning of Directive 97/67 to a public limited company whose capital
            is wholly state-owned and which, in that State, is the provider of the universal postal service, in so far as the contracts
            to which that legislation applies
      –       reach the relevant threshold as provided for in Article 7(1) of Directive 92/50, as amended by Directive 2001/78, and
      –       constitute contracts within the meaning of Article 1(a) of Directive 92/50, as amended by Directive 2001/78, concluded in
            writing for pecuniary interest,
      which are matters for the national court to establish.
      3.      Articles 43 EC, 49 EC and 86 EC, as well as the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination by reason of nationality
            and transparency, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State that allows public authorities to entrust,
            without regard to the rules governing the award of public service contracts, the provision of non-reserved postal services
            within the meaning of Directive 97/67 to a public limited company whose capital is wholly state-owned and which, in that State,
            is the provider of universal postal services, in so far as the contracts to which that legislation applies
      –       do not reach the relevant threshold as provided for in Article 7(1) of Directive 92/50, as amended by Directive  2001/78,
            and 
      –       do not in actual fact constitute a unilateral administrative measure creating obligations solely for the provider of the universal
            postal service and departing significantly from the normal conditions of a commercial offer made by that company,
      which are matters for the national court to establish.
      [Signatures]
      * Language of the case: Spanish.