EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62013CA0340

Case C-340/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — bpost SA v Institut belge des services postaux et des télécommunications (IBPT) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Postal services — Directive 97/67/EC — Article 12 — Universal service provider — Quantitative discounts — Application to intermediaries who consolidate postal items — Requirement of non-discrimination)

OJ C 118, 13.4.2015, p. 4–4 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

13.4.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/4


Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — bpost SA v Institut belge des services postaux et des télécommunications (IBPT)

(Case C-340/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Postal services - Directive 97/67/EC - Article 12 - Universal service provider - Quantitative discounts - Application to intermediaries who consolidate postal items - Requirement of non-discrimination))

(2015/C 118/05)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: bpost SA

Defendant: Institut belge des services postaux et des télécommunications (IBPT)

Operative part of the judgment

The principle of non-discrimination in postal tariffs laid down in Article 12 of Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service, as amended by Directive 2008/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008, must be interpreted as not precluding a system of quantitative discounts per sender, such as that at issue in the main proceedings.


(1)  OJ C 233, 10.8.2013.


Top