Activites

• 1998/01/21 Final act published in Official Journal
  • Directive 1997/67
  • OJ L 015 21.01.1998, p. 0014
• 1997/12/15 Final act signed
• 1997/12/15 End of procedure in Parliament
• #2054
• 1997/12/01 Council Meeting
• 1997/11/19 Decision by Parliament, 3rd reading
  • T4-0545/1997 summary

    In adopting the report by Mr Brian SIMPSON (PSE, UK), the European Parliament has approved the joint draft on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and improving the quality of service. �

• 1997/11/12 Report tabled for plenary, 3rd reading
  • A4-0360/1997
• 1997/11/07 Joint text approved by Conciliation Committee co-chairs
  • 3627/1997
• 1997/11/06 Formal meeting of Conciliation Committee
• #2038
• 1997/11/03 Council Meeting
• 1997/09/16 Decision by Parliament, 2nd reading
  • T4-0427/1997 summary

    In adopting the recommendation by Mr Brian SIMPSON (PSE, RU), Parliament approved the Council's common position on postal services, in so far as it met all of Parliament's concerns and incorporated its main requests. The common position, was, in fact, based on a gradual approach in liberalizing the market in postal services, as proposed by Parliament. The following were incorporated: - in order to reconcile the opening-up of the postal markets with the aim of protecting these markets from the negative effects of a sudden and uncontrolled liberalization, the public postal operators should ensure that the area reserved was sufficiently large; - the reserved area included direct mail and cross-border mail, whereas the universal service comprises packages up to 10 kg (which could be extended to 20 kg by the public authorities); - all further legislation should be based on Article 100a of the EC Treaty, which guaranteed not only the full participation of Parliament in the process but also that this liberalization would be based on the rule of law and would not be an automatic process. In addition to some technical changes, Parliament also requested the following: - that each Member State ensured that the level of service was guaranteed and that the Commission be notified of the measures taken to satisfy this condition, with particular regard to the identity of the designated postal operator(s) responsible for providing universal service; - that exceptions be permitted to the weight and price limits in favour of blind and partially-sighted persons; - that the application of a uniform tariff did not exclude the right of the universal service provider(s) to conclude individual agreements on prices with customers; - closer consideration of the distribution costs incurred by the universal service provider in the country of destination. �

• 1997/09/15 Debate in Parliament
  • Debate in Parliament summary

    The rapporteur welcomed the fact that the directive provided for a large enough reserved area and recalled that the real objective of liberalisation had to be to improve the services provided. As for the common position, Mr Simpson stated that a number of technical improvements had been made but added that a solution was still needed to one outstanding issue, namely terminal dues. Commissioner Bangemann also welcomed the fact that the liberalisation principle had been accepted and that a timetable had been decided. He was keen to continue the work so that, within the framework of reasonable deregulation, the postal service would become an important part of the information society.

• 1997/09/04 Vote in committee, 2nd reading
  • A4-0271/1997
• 1997/05/29 Committee referral announced in Parliament, 2nd reading
• #2003
• 1997/04/29 Council Meeting
  • 05633/1/1997 summary

    In general, the common position of the Council accepts the objective and scope proposed by the Commission for the Directive. As far as the central provisions concerning the development of the reserved sector are concerned, the Council, largely following the line of the European Parliament, opts for a more cautious stance than that proposed by the Commission. The Council has made a number of amendments to the proposal which, in conjunction with the amendments by the European Parliament which it has accepted (23 altogether), improve the Directive with regard to the following points: - Definitions: on the basis of the proceedings of the European Committee on Postal Regulation (CERP), which in turn were based on the definitions used by the Universal Postal Union, a number of definitions are amended to bring them into line with best practice. Other definitions, such as those of 'essential requirements' and 'authorizations', are added; - Scope of the universal service: the common position takes account of differing national situations by introducing greater flexibility in comparison with the Commission proposal, particularly in the following respects: .granting national regulatory authorities (NRA) discretion to decide on exceptions to frequency and to door-to-door deliveries; .the fixing of a weight limit of 10 kg for postal packages, but allowing Member States to increase it to 20 kg on the understanding that the delivery of such packages should also be provided for in intra-Community dealings; .the requirement for Member States to ensure that universal service provision meets certain essential requirements, and the right of Member States to take measures with regard to questions of public interest recognized by the Treaty; - Harmonization of services which may be reserved, and timetable for liberalization: the common position provides for: in so far as necessary in order to maintain the universal service, the option to reserve cross-border mail and direct mail. The European Parliament and the Council are to decide by 01/01/2000 (on the basis of a Commission proposal to be submitted before the end of 1998) on the further gradual and controlled liberalization of the postal market, particularly to liberalize direct mail and cross-border mail and to review prices and weight limits with effect from 01/01/2003. The common position indicates that price and weight limits for services which may be reserved must also apply to express mail, but that document exchange may not be reserved. It further stipulates that Member States may organize the registered mail service used in the course of judicial or administrative procedures; - Conditions concerning the provision of non-reserved services: the common position stipulates that only general authorizations may be used for non-reserved services which do not form part of the universal service, while authorizations taking the form of individual licences may be used for non-reserved services which fall within the scope of the universal service; - Tariff principles and transparency of accounts: the common position goes further than the Commission proposal, particularly with regard to the principles with which agreements on terminal dues concluded by universal service providers must comply. It also includes more detailed provisions on cost accounting with the aim of monitoring the development of the various postal services provided by the universal service provider. It does not require separation of the balance-sheet and profit-and-loss account for reserved and non-reserved services respectively (as proposed by the Commission); - Quality of services: the common position does not set specific minimum quality standards for national mail. It sets the following minimum quality standards for intra-Community cross-border services: D+3 for 85% of items and D+5 for 97% of items. These objectives are to be reviewed under the regulatory committee procedure. National regulatory authorities may grant exceptions from the quality standards, after informing the Commission. They are required to take corrective measures if monitoring of performance levels shows that quality standards are not respected, in the case either of national or of intra-Community cross-border services. With regard to the introduction of a system of reimbursement and/or compensation to settle disputes, the common position allows the Member States a measure of flexibility, calling on them to provide for such a system where warranted. The amendments accepted by the Commission but not incorporated in the common position particularly included: - the issuing of stamps denominated in euro; - derogation from universal service requirements in exceptional geographical conditions; - the initial minimum service quality requirement for domestic mail; - the reference to a monitoring centre to assist the Commission and the requirement that the Commission include in its report on the application of the Directive the opinions delivered by the parties concerned. �

• #P000
• 1996/12/18 Council Meeting
• 1996/07/31 Modified legislative proposal published
  • COM(1996)0412 summary

    The amended proposal for a Directive on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services incorporates, in full or in part, 16 of the 58 amendments adopted by Parliament at first reading. The Commission accepted those amendments which: - emphasize the importance of creating an internal market for postal services within the Community; - reaffirm the need for a wide consultation of interested parties in the postal sector; - increase transparency and ensure the effective provision of relevant information to the public; - refer to the possibility for Member States to integrate the 12-star symbol of the EU into their postage stamps and the need to explore the possibilities for introducing Euro-denominated postage stamps; - make clear that the process of liberalization should not curtail the right of Member States to make provision for services for blind and partially sighted persons; - clarify the text in a manner consistent with the aims of the Directive; - extend the period allowed for implementation of the Directive; - are consistent with other Community legislation. The amendments not incorporated in the amended proposal essentially concern the following points: - reserved services and the timetable for liberalization; - declaration and authorization procedures; - quality of service: - terminal dues; - social and employment issues; - case law of the Court of Justice. �

• #1941
• 1996/06/27 Council Meeting
  • 1941
• 1996/05/09 Debate in Parliament
  • Debate in Parliament summary

    The rapporteur, Mr SIMPSON (PSE, UK), focused mainly on the social role of the postal services, pointing out that this was the reason why it was essential to provide a postal service for all users, no matter whether they lived in the outlying regions or in the major cities. With a view to ensuring the proper functioning of the universal service, it was necessary to identify those services that had to be maintained in the reserved sector. Fearing that the proposal in question would have disastrous consequences for the more remote regions, the rapporteur expressed his opposition to the privatisation of this sector, since people were anxious to protect the public postal service. In his address Commissioner Bangemann pointed out that the Commission was not against the public service. For the Commission, the introduction of competition was not an objective in itself but rather a means for improving the quality of the service provided. With this in mind, the Commission planned to adopt a prudent approach that would follow a middle line between harmonisation and deregulation in order to achieve a state of controlled liberalisation. He concluded by citing the examples of Sweden and Finland, where deregulation had helped improve the quality of the public service.

  • T4-0215/1996 summary

    In adopting, by 257 votes to 34 with 19 abstentions, the report by Mr Brian SIMPSON (PSE, UK) on the proposal for a Directive on common rules for the development of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service, the European Parliament expressed the view that a balance must be struck between the obligations of universal service providers and the specific or exclusive rights granted to such providers with a view to financing their obligations. A universal service should be regarded as a public service; it was necessary to ensure that, outside the reserved sector, there was fair competition among universal service providers and between them and other operators. Taking the view that the liberalization of direct mail and incoming cross-border mail would harm the ability of postal administrations to maintain traffic volumes and therefore services and employment, the report amended Article 8 of the Commission proposal substantially. The report expressed the view (contrary to that of the Commission) that in order to ensure the maintenance of universal service and the economic viability of the operator responsible for providing it, direct mail could be reserved to the universal service providers in each Member State. Similarly, it considered that the distribution of cross-border mail could continue to be reserved until five years after the entry into force of the Directive (whereas the Commission had set a deadline of 31 December 2000), after which the Commission was called upon to present a proposal on the subject. Unlike the Commission, the report also expressed the view that special services, such as express mail, and new services could likewise form part of the universal service. The report also observed that any form of harmonization must take account of the Community objectives of economic and social cohesion and ought therefore to ensure the uninterrupted provision of the universal service in the most remote or least advantaged regions. It therefore stressed the need to offer an identical service to all users (and not only those whose circumstances were similar). The principle of universal service accordingly required a uniform national tariff. Lastly, as increasing competition on the postal market was likely to increase the need for social protection of workers, the report stated that the restructuring resulting from the application of the Directive must give priority to the preservation of existing jobs and to safeguarding the social protection of employees.�

• 1996/03/25 Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
  • A4-0105/1996
• 1995/12/11 Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
• #1888
• 1995/11/27 Council Meeting
• 1995/07/26 Legislative proposal published
  • COM(1995)0227 summary

    OBJECTIVES: - To guarantee the provision of a high-quality universal postal service within the Community on a permanent basis, which is affordable and accessible to everyone, and whose financing is assured in the long term; - To harmonize the conditions under which postal services are provided and eliminate legal and technical barriers to cross-border trade, with a view to establishing the single market. SUBSTANCE: The proposal for a directive from the European Parliament and Council provides for the following measures: * Respect for the universal service: - Member States shall ensure that users have the right to a universal service corresponding to the provision of high-quality postal services, at affordable prices, throughout the territory of the Union; - the postal services which come under the universal service are subject to obligations of transparency, equality of access and non-discrimination in respect of: the quality of the service, the tariff principles and the transparency of accounts; the conditions of access to the universal service provider's network; the characteristics of the universal service (collection and distribution frequency, contact points, etc.); * Improving the quality of the services: - the setting of standards by Member States for national services and, at Community level, for intra-Community cross-border services; - performance checks to be carried out by independent bodies, which are not associated with the universal service providers, in accordance with harmonized procedures; - annual publication of results. * Definition of harmonized criteria for services which are likely to be reserved for universal service providers: - Two criteria are retained for defining the scope of the services reserved for domestic mail: . a weight limit to be applied to domestic mail of less than 350 g; . a price limit calculated as follows: five times the public tariff for a standard item of correspondence in each Member State (normally a letter weighing 20 g); - Outgoing cross-border mail, which is in fact already liberalized in most Member States, will be excluded from the reservable services; - Incoming mailshots and cross-border mail may continue to be reserved up until 31 December 2000, insofar as this reservation is necessary for the financial stability of the universal service provider. The Commission will decide on or before 30 June 1998 whether it is necessary to maintain incoming mailshots and cross-border mail in the reserved sector beyond 31 December 2000, by taking account of developments in this sector; - A general review of the size of the reserved sector will be undertaken at the latest before the first half of 2000. * Harmonization of technical standards: the directive provides for a procedure which will allow harmonized standards to be drawn up and adopted on the basis of mandates which have been given to the European Committee for Standardization; * Separation of the functions of operation and regulation: the directive requires all Member States to set up an independent national regulatory authority for postal operators. Universal service providers are required to keep transparent accounts and to draw up separate accounts for services which are open to competition and for reserved services. �

• 1994/06/20 Additional information

Documents

• Legislative proposal published: COM(1995)0227
• Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading: A4-0105/1996
• Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
• Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T4-0215/1996
• Debate in Council: 1941
• Modified legislative proposal published: COM(1996)0412
• Council position published: 05633/1/1997
• Committee recommendation tabled for plenary, 2nd reading: A4-0271/1997
• Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
• Decision by Parliament, 2nd reading: T4-0427/1997
• Joint text approved by Conciliation Committee co-chairs: 3627/1997
• Report tabled for plenary, 3rd reading: A4-0360/1997
• Decision by Parliament, 3rd reading: T4-0545/1997
• : Directive 1997/67
• : OJ L 015 21.01.1998, p. 0014

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)