Case C‑340/13

bpost SA

v

Institut belge des services postaux et des télécommunications (IBPT)

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the cour d’appel de Bruxelles)

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

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 11 February 2015

Freedom to provide services — Community postal services — Directive 97/67 — Services reserved for the providers of the universal postal service — System of quantity discounts per sender granted to the senders and intermediaries, the discount granted to the latter being calculated on the basis of the volume of mailings generated individually by each of their clients — Lawfulness

(European Parliament and Council Directive 97/67, Arts 2, point 16 and 12)

The principle of non-discrimination in postal tariffs laid down in Article 12 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, as amended by Directive 2008/6, must be interpreted as not precluding a system of quantity discounts per sender, granted to senders and intermediaries, the discount granted to the latter being calculated on the basis of the volume of mailings generated individually by each of their clients.

The senders are the only ones in a position to increase demand in the area of postal services since they are responsible for originating postal items, as stated in the definition of the concept of ‘sender’ in Article 2, point 16, of Directive 97/67. However, except to the limited extent that the intermediaries are themselves senders, their activity does not, of itself, contribute to the increase in the volume of mailings.

Consequently, senders and intermediaries are not in comparable situations as regards the objective pursued by the system of quantity discounts per sender, which is to stimulate demand in the area of postal services, since only senders are in a position to be encouraged, by the effect of that system, to increase the volume of their mail handed on to the national universal postal service provider and, accordingly, the turnover of that operator.

(see paras 37, 38, 48, 49, operative part)

Case C‑340/13

bpost SA

v

Institut belge des services postaux et des télécommunications (IBPT)

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the cour d’appel de Bruxelles)

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

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 11 February 2015

Freedom to provide services — Community postal services — Directive 97/67 — Services reserved for the providers of the universal postal service — System of quantity discounts per sender granted to the senders and intermediaries, the discount granted to the latter being calculated on the basis of the volume of mailings generated individually by each of their clients — Lawfulness

(European Parliament and Council Directive 97/67, Arts 2, point 16 and 12)

The principle of non-discrimination in postal tariffs laid down in Article 12 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, as amended by Directive 2008/6, must be interpreted as not precluding a system of quantity discounts per sender, granted to senders and intermediaries, the discount granted to the latter being calculated on the basis of the volume of mailings generated individually by each of their clients.

The senders are the only ones in a position to increase demand in the area of postal services since they are responsible for originating postal items, as stated in the definition of the concept of ‘sender’ in Article 2, point 16, of Directive 97/67. However, except to the limited extent that the intermediaries are themselves senders, their activity does not, of itself, contribute to the increase in the volume of mailings.

Consequently, senders and intermediaries are not in comparable situations as regards the objective pursued by the system of quantity discounts per sender, which is to stimulate demand in the area of postal services, since only senders are in a position to be encouraged, by the effect of that system, to increase the volume of their mail handed on to the national universal postal service provider and, accordingly, the turnover of that operator.

(see paras 37, 38, 48, 49, operative part)