KONČNO
A6-0390/2005
5.12.2005
POROČILO
o uporabi poštne Direktive (Direktiva 97/67/ES, kakor je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 2002/39/ES)
(2005/2086(INI))
Odbor za promet in turizem
Poročevalec:
Markus Ferber
PE 362.494v02-00
VSEBINA
PREDLOG RESOLUCIJE EVROPSKEGA PARLAMENTA.....................................................3
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT................................................................................................7
POSTOPEK..............................................................................................................................11
PREDLOG RESOLUCIJE EVROPSKEGA PARLAMENTA
o uporabi Poštne direktive (Direktiva 97/67/ES, kakor je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 2002/39/ES)
( 2005/2086(INI) )
Evropski parlament ,
– ob upoštevanju poročila Komisije o uporabi Poštne direktive (Direktiva 97/67/ES, kakor je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 2002/39/ES) ( KOM(2005)0102 ) ter spremljajočega delovnega dokumenta ( SEK(2005)0388 ),
– ob upoštevanju prvega poročila Komisije o uporabi Poštne direktive ( KOM(2002)0632 ),
– ob upoštevanju člena 45 svojega Poslovnika,
– ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za promet in turizem ( A6-0390/2005 ),
A. ker imajo poštne storitve velik gospodarski pomen in so poštni prihodki v letu 2002 znašali približno 88 milijard EUR, kar ustreza 0,9 % BDP Unije; ker se ocenjuje, da je od poštnega sektorja neposredno odvisnih ali z njim tesno povezanih več kot 5 milijonov delovnih mest;
B. ker so konkurenčne in učinkovite poštne storitve kot del trga distribucije in komunikacij velikega pomena za gospodarsko in socialno dogajanje v Evropski uniji in so tesno povezane s številnimi gospodarskimi sektorji ter vplivajo nanje; ker imajo zato poštne storitve tudi v okviru lizbonske strategije pomembno vlogo,
C. ker so reforme ter gospodarski in tehnični razvoj poštnega sektorja v Evropski uniji privedli k sodobnim postopkom in večji stopnji avtomatizacije in ker so dosedanji koraki reforme z izboljšanjem kakovosti, večjo učinkovitostjo in boljšo usmerjenostjo k strankam pripomogli k precejšnjemu pozitivnemu razvoju v poštnem sektorju,
D. upoštevajoč nenadomestljivo teritorialno in socialno razsežnost poštnih omrežij, ki omogočajo univerzalen dostop do nujnih lokalnih storitev;
E. ker bo Komisija v poročilu ovrednotila, v kolikšni meri so bili doseženi cilji Direktive 2002/39/ES, pri čemer bo posebej upoštevala gospodarske, socialne in tehnološke vidike, ter podala ugotovitve o zaposlovalnih vidikih in kakovosti storitev,
F. ker želi Evropski parlament s tem poročilom opozoriti na vprašanja in vidike, ki bi jih morala Komisija upoštevati pri nadaljnjem delu,
1. ugotavlja, da je bil pri prenosu Poštne direktive v nacionalno zakonodajo na splošno dosežen dober napredek; pozdravlja dejstvo, da zastavljeni usklajevalni okvir državam članicam omogoča, da uporabijo nove pristope in uberejo različne poti, ki jih lahko druge države članice uporabijo kot model za naslednje korake; vendar ugotavlja, da bo učinke reform na kakovost, učinkovitost in usmerjenost k strankam v poštnem sektorju še treba natančneje analizirati ter da odprtje poštnih storitev konkurenci ni vedno vodilo k ohranitvi stopnje zaposlenosti v poštnem sektorju;
2. na podlagi razpoložljivih podatkov z veseljem ugotavlja, da je dosedanji razvoj trga prinesel pozitivne rezultate; v zvezi s tem želi opozoriti, da se razvoj konkurenčnosti ne meri izključno s stopnjo odprtosti trga in s tržnimi deleži;
3. vendar ugotavlja, da v določenem številu držav članic izvajanje direktive (2002/39/ES) močno zaostaja, zlasti na področju odpiranja trgov, in da obstaja tveganje za neravnovesje na evropskem poštnem trgu in možnost škode za zainteresirane operaterje; poziva Komisijo, da v svojem poročilu navede ukrepe, ki jih namerava sprejeti v zvezi s tem;
4. poudarja, da na trgih poštnih storitev potekajo temeljne spremembe, ki izhajajo iz naraščajoče konkurenčnosti in razvoja sorodnih trgov komunikacij, oglaševanja ter transportnega in logističnega sektorja, temeljijo pa tudi na spremenjenih načinih komunikacije; meni, da bi zato morala poštna politika v prihodnje te vidike upoštevati v zadostni meri;
5. poziva Komisijo, naj se zaradi včasih izrazito različnega razvoja glede obveznosti zagotavljanja univerzalnih storitev v državah članicah zlasti pri oblikovanju svoje prospektivne študije osredotoči na kakovost zagotavljanja univerzalnih storitev in na njihovo financiranje v prihodnje ter naj v okviru te načrtovane študije predlaga definicijo, obseg in ustrezno financiranje univerzalnih storitev;
6. poziva Komisijo, naj ugotovi, ali je notranji trg poštnih storitev mogoče dokončno oblikovati do leta 2009 ali pa bi bilo glede na zaključke študije primerno določiti drugačne etape;
7. meni, da je treba zaradi temeljnih sprememb na trgih poštnih storitev ponovno razmisliti o definiciji univerzalnih storitev in pri tem upoštevati spremenjene načine komunikacije; vendar opozarja, da so univerzalne storitve visoko kakovostne, z močno potrebo po delovni sili in s poudarkom na varstvu interesov potrošnikov, ter poziva Komisijo, da ta dejstva vključi v raziskovalni okvir načrtovane prospektivne študije; v zvezi s tem poziva Komisijo, naj razišče, kako najbolje zagotoviti udeležbo in sodelovanje uporabnikov poštnih storitev, ter se posvetuje s socialnimi partnerji, na katere to vpliva (s trgovinskimi in industrijskimi zbornicami, sindikati itd.), z aktivnimi podjetji na trgu in lokalnimi interesnimi organizacijami;
8. priznava delo, ki ga je opravil Evropski odbor za standardizacijo (CEN) na področju standardizacije v poštnem sektorju in spodbuja Komisijo, naj še naprej ustrezno upošteva njeno vlogo v korist varstva potrošnikov in v luči vzpostavitve notranjega trga;
9. poziva Komisijo, naj bo v svojih načrtovanih študijah zelo pozorna na učinek prihodnjih etap odpiranja poštnih storitev konkurenci, in sicer glede geografskega pokrivanja in razvijanja omrežij, še posebej upoštevajoč pogoje dostopnosti za najrevnejše ali najbolj obrobno prebivalstvo EU;
10. je seznanjen z zahtevo, da bi morale države članice uvesti večji cenovni nadzor, ločeno stroškovno računovodstvo in preverjanje navzkrižnega subvencioniranja; vendar poudarja, da je treba na konkurenčnem trgu take regulativne posege zadostno utemeljiti, kadar presegajo splošno konkurenčno pravo;
11. meni, da sta sprejetje in uvedba standardov storitev, ki jih je oblikoval CEN, bistvena za zagotovitev preglednosti, zanesljivosti in kakovosti poštnega trga, zato poziva Komisijo in države članice, naj v korist napredka na tem področju obojemu namenijo prednost;
12. pozdravlja željo Komisije, da nadalje preuči vprašanje urejanja postopnega dostopa ("downstream access"); vendar opozarja, da bi regulacija ravno na tem področju pomenila velik poseg na trg, in zato poziva k temeljiti predhodni preiskavi o tem, ali in v kakšnem obsegu bi lahko upravičili tak poseg z ekonomskega in pravnega vidika; pri tem je treba upoštevati, da obstaja že vrsta modelov poslovanja na različnih trgih poštnih storitev, po katerih so konkurenti uspešno vstopili na trg brez uporabe reguliranega dostopa do mreže; poziva Evropsko komisijo, da oceni vpliv teh modelov in presodi, ali bi bilo primerno postaviti evropski okvir za pogoje pristopa do omrežja, zato da bi bil le-ta pravičen;
13. ugotavlja, da uporabljeni modeli financiranja univerzalnih storitev v državah članicah niso bili uspešni in da je bilo rezervirano področje doslej zanesljiv instrument financiranja univerzalnih storitev; zato poziva Komisijo, da s prospektivno študijo temeljito razišče, ali razvoj univerzalnih storitev, ohranitev katerih je gospodarsko in družbeno upravičena, in večja prilagodljivost regulativnega okvira pozitivno vplivata na rešitev problema financiranja univerzalnih storitev; poziva Komisijo, da razišče možnost razlikovanja rezerviranega področja glede na stroške financiranja univerzalnih storitev, zlasti z vidika geografskih in demografskih omejitev;
14. pozdravlja dejstvo, da so po začetnih težavah v nekaterih državah članicah ugotovili velik napredek pri neodvisnosti regulativnih organov; poudarja, da je z večjo odprtostjo trga treba večji poudarek nameniti konkurenčnemu pravu kot strožjim predpisom; poziva Komisijo, da v skladu s svojo napovedjo v poročilu okrepi dialog z in med regulativnimi organi in državami članicami ter spodbuja s tem povezane primerjalne analize ("benchmarking"), da se omejijo naloge organov pri nadzoru nad prenosom predpisov;
15. na podlagi različnih izkušenj z obstoječimi režimi podeljevanja licenc v državah članicah in ob upoštevanju načela subsidiarnosti poziva, da se vprašanje postopka za izdajo dovoljenj vključi v preverjanje v okviru študije, s posebnim sklicevanjem na pojasnitev operativnega področja, postopek odobritve in na obvezne pogoje, ki urejajo avtorizacijo, dodeljeno s poštno direktivo; poudarja, da tovrstne zahteve dejansko ne bi smele ustvariti novih ovir za dostop do trga oziroma omogočiti odstopanja cen na tržišču ali neprimerno delovanje v lastno korist;
16. opozarja, da racionalizacija delovnih mest ni le posledica poštnih reform; opozarja, da novi modeli poslovanja, novi izdelki in metode poslovanja prav tako vplivajo na število delovnih mest v tradicionalnem poštnem sektorju;
17. poziva Komisijo, da v svoji študiji preuči vprašanje o tem, kako se obravnavajo pokojninske obveznosti poštnih javnih operaterjev, da bi se izognili motnjam na trgu v liberaliziranem okolju;
18. meni, da je različno obravnavanje davka na dodano vrednost na trgu poštnih storitev zaskrbljujoče, in poziva Komisijo, da ob upoštevanju stališča z dne 11. marca 2004
UL C 102 E, 28.4.2004, str. 814. o predlogu Direktive Sveta o spremembi Direktive 77/388 EGS o usklajevanju zakonov držav članic v zvezi z davkom na dodano vrednost za storitve v poštnem sektorju poda predloge, kako bi zagotovili potrebno pravno jasnost in nediskriminatornost med operaterji;
19. poziva Komisijo, da poskrbi, da administrativne sankcije v primeru kršitve določb nacionalnih zakonov s področja poštnih storitev ne bodo nesorazmerne in da ne bodo ovirale delovanja poštnega trga; poziva Komisijo, da v okviru izdelave prospektivne študije naredi seznam predvidenih ali veljavnih nacionalnih kazenskih določb;
20. naroči svojemu predsedniku, naj to resolucijo posreduje Svetu in Komisiji ter državam članicam.
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
I. Background
The EU’s legal framework for postal services is Directive 97/67/EC, the 'Postal Directive', which arose in response to the widely differing conditions governing the provision of postal services in Europe. The framework conditions set out in the Directive are intended to contribute to the completion of the Single Market in the postal sector by means of gradual and controlled liberalisation of the market, and thereby to ensure that reliable and high-quality postal services are made available everywhere to all citizens of the European Union at affordable prices.
The Postal Directive was amended in 2002 by Directive 2002/39/EC. The main features of this amendment were the following:
· From 1 January 2003, services may be reserved to universal service providers for domestic correspondence and incoming cross-border correspondence only up to a weight of 100g (or three times the public tariff for an item of correspondence in the first weight step of the fastest category).
· From 1 January 2006 this weight limit will fall to 50g (or two and a half times this tariff).
· The Commission will finalise a prospective study which will assess, for each Member State, the impact on universal service of the full accomplishment of the postal internal market in 2009.
· Based on the study's conclusions, the Commission is to submit by 31 December 2006 a report to the European Parliament and the Council accompanied by a proposal either confirming, if appropriate, the date of 2009 for the full accomplishment of the postal internal market or determining any other step.
Article 23 also requires the Commission to submit a report every two years to the European Parliament and the Council, ' including the appropriate information about developments in the sector, particularly concerning economic, social, employment and technological aspects, as well as about quality of service. '
The Commission has now – on 23 March 2005 – submitted its second report ( COM(2005)0102 ) on the application of the Postal Directive and an accompanying working document ( SEC(2005)0388 ).
II. The Commission report
The Commission stresses once again the economic importance of postal services, which employed some 1.85 million people in 2002. It also emphasises the significance of postal services for communications and trade, and in particular the dependence on the postal infrastructure of economic sectors such as e-commerce, publishing, mail-order, insurance, banking and advertising.
1. Effects of Directive 2002/39/EC
The Commission states that the reform of the postal market in the EU is making good progress. Significant improvements have been made in
· quality of service,
· business efficiency,
· separation of regulators from operators.
The transposition of the Directive into national law is now largely complete. There had been no problems with the reduction of the reserved sector by 1 January 2003. There have, however, been a few delays in the transposition of Directive 2002/39 in the Member States which joined on 1 May 2004.
In spite of the good progress, particular attention needs to be paid to a number of points, including:
· separation of accounts for individual services,
· cost allocation,
· monitoring prices of universal services.
The Commission points out in particular that, while the national regulatory authorities have become more independent and regulation has clearly become more efficient, there is still a risk of regulatory asymmetry between the Member States, which might in turn foster market asymmetry.
2. Current market developments in the postal sector
The Commission states that the postal market has moved away from the more traditional two-way communications model, and is now largely a one-way (business to consumer) market. This trend, which contradicts pessimistic predictions that postal services are a constantly shrinking market, may lead to new dynamic business models such as home shopping, e-commerce and hybrid mail.
However, competition has yet to develop in the addressed mail market segment outside niche services. There are still many potential obstacles to market access, in particular different tax liabilities faced by incumbents and market entrants as regards VAT.
Finally the Commission states that the market situation varies considerably from one Member State to another. In some, the Universal Service Providers (USPs) continue to enjoy high profit margins, while in others USPs face more difficult conditions. This results from the varying forms of market intervention, differing ownership structures and price levels.
III. Your rapporteur’s comments and recommendations for action
The Commission report is timely and your rapporteur welcomes the fact that Parliament has taken the opportunity in this report to express its opinion on the current situation and on possible future measures. The course taken in the next few years will be of decisive importance for postal services, and the forthcoming prospective study and subsequent Commission report thus deserve particular attention. This report cannot seek to anticipate these two documents, due to appear in 2006. The European Parliament will, of course, have to deal comprehensively with the study and the Commission report at the appropriate time.
Your rapporteur thus chiefly sees the task of this report as being on the one hand to assess developments so far on the postal market, and on the other to draw attention to issues which need to be looked at as priorities in the prospective study and in the subsequent report.
First of all it should be noted that experiences with the transposition and application of the amended Postal Directive are positive and encouraging. EU legislation has given major incentives to the postal market. The objective of guaranteeing universal services while gradually opening up the market has been achieved.
The transposition of Directive 2002/39 has so far, in your rapporteur's view, been satisfactory. This is also, happily, the case for the new Member States which joined in 2004. Remaining shortcomings can be ironed out rapidly by the Commission together with the Member States concerned. The Commission itself in its report cites the examples of the licensing and complaints procedures, price controls and the separation of accounts for individual services.
In addition to the formal transposition of the Directive, its application also needs to be assessed, i.e. the way in which the Member States implement the framework set by the Directive and the extent to which the new regulatory system is beginning to take effect. One central issue is the universal service obligation, which is regulated at several points of the Directive (Chapter 2, Chapter 6). As highlighted in the working paper attached to the Commission report (SEC(2005)388), while the requirements of the Directive have been complied with and a high overall quality level maintained, there are significant divergences between the Member States. Several Member States have altered or are considering altering the extent of the universal service obligation. Your rapporteur considers that it is not necessarily damaging if the Member States go down different routes in this respect. However, the Commission figures point to these divergences being significant, thus potentially jeopardising a central objective of the Postal Directive, namely the guaranteeing throughout the EU of a universal service which comprises a minimum level of services of a specified quality at an affordable price. Your rapporteur therefore considers it important to investigate in the forthcoming prospective study whether the definitions in the Postal Directive are clear enough and set an appropriate framework for the Member States.
The same applies to the authorisation procedure for non-reserved services under Article 9 of the Postal Directive: the Commission notes a disturbing level of confusion and misunderstanding as to the circumstances in which authorisation procedures may be used. Here, too, your rapporteur recommends that the clarity of the relevant provisions of the Postal Directive be made a priority in the study.
The Commission’s comments on the issue of downstream access are expressed in very general terms. Naturally one can only agree that developments in this area should be observed and discussed with the Member States. In the absence of specific recommendations from the Commission, your rapporteur merely wishes to point here out that any attempts to regulate downstream access may affect or impede market activity. Any public intervention requires detailed justification.
It is good that the Commission has observed increasing independence on the part of the regulatory authorities. On the basis of the available data, and given the widely diverging structures and approaches in the Member States, it is hard to say to what extent the level of independence so far attained is sufficient. At any rate your rapporteur regards it as too early yet to lower our guard: we must await developments. The increasing opening of the market calls for independent and effective regulation. Your rapporteur stresses, however, that this should not mean an unbridled expansion of regulatory activity. On the contrary, the regulatory authorities must grow into their role as competition authorities. The benchmarking envisaged by the Commission is to be welcomed.
Your rapporteur has carefully noted the Commission’s comments on tariff-setting or price regulation. While it states that all Member States have taken measures to guarantee the tariff-setting principles of Article 12 of the Postal Directive, the picture remains fragmentary. More space will have to be devoted to this issue in the forthcoming study, specially when one considers that there is considerable dissatisfaction with pricing in some Member States. In connection with tariff-setting, your rapporteur also stresses the as yet unresolved problem of VAT on postal services. It is very worrying that the relevant proposal remains blocked in the Council. This asymmetry risks doing lasting damage to competition: progress on the basis of Parliament's resolution of 11 March 2004 and the amended Commission proposal ( COM(2004)0468 ) are urgently needed.
To sum up, your rapporteur regards the results of the Postal Directive to date as encouraging. While there is a need to take action, or at least to observe developments, in several of the areas referred to above, and although we still need, of course, to wait and see the 2006 study and report, your rapporteur considers on the basis of the results attained so far that it is appropriate to retain the 2009 deadline for completion of the Internal Market in postal services.
POSTOPEK
Naslov
Uporaba poštne direktive (Direktiva 97/67/ES, kakor je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 2002/39/ES)
Številka postopka
2005/2086(INI)
Podlaga v Poslovniku
člen 45
Pristojni odbor Datum razglasitve dovoljenja na zasedanju
TRAN
9.6.2005
Odbori, zaprošeni za mnenje Datum razglasitve na zasedanju
Odbori, ki niso dali mnenja Datum sklepa
Okrepljeno sodelovanje Datum razglasitve na zasedanju
Predlog(-i) resolucije, vključen(-i) v poročilo
Poročevalec(-ka) Datum imenovanja:
Markus Ferber 2.5.2005
Prejšnji poročevalec (-ka)
Obravnava v odboru
13.9.2005
11.10.2005
Datum sprejetja
22.11.2005
Izid končnega glasovanja
za:
proti:
vzdržani:
37
8
1
Poslanci, navzoči pri končnem glasovanju
Inés Ayala Sender, Etelka Barsi-Pataky, Michael Cramer, Arūnas Degutis, Armando Dionisi, Saïd El Khadraoui, Robert Evans, Mathieu Grosch, Ewa Hedkvist Petersen, Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, Georg Jarzembowski, Dieter-Lebrecht Koch, Jaromír Kohlíček, Fernand Le Rachinel, Jörg Leichtfried, Bogusław Liberadzki, Eva Lichtenberger, Patrick Louis, Ashley Mote, Michael Henry Nattrass, Seán Ó Neachtain, Janusz Onyszkiewicz, Josu Ortuondo Larrea, Willi Piecyk, Luís Queiró, Reinhard Rack, Luca Romagnoli, Gilles Savary, Renate Sommer, Dirk Sterckx, Ulrich Stockmann, Gary Titley, Georgios Toussas, Marta Vincenzi, Roberts Zīle
Namestniki, navzoči pri končnem glasovanju
Zsolt László Becsey, Den Dover, Markus Ferber, Jas Gawronski, Zita Gurmai, Elisabeth Jeggle, Sepp Kusstatscher, Helmuth Markov, Rosa Miguélez Ramos, Francesco Musotto, Willem Schuth
Namestniki, navzoči pri končnem glasovanju v skladu s členom 178(2)
Datum predložitve – A6
5.12.2005
A6-0390/2005
