I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Language of the case: Italian
Applicants: Confederazione Generale Italiana dei Trasporti e della Logistica (Confetra) (C-259/16), Associazione Nazionale Imprese Trasporti Automobilistici (C-259/16), Fercam SpA (C-259/16), Associazione non Riconosciuta Alsea (C-259/16), Associazione Fedit (C-259/16), Carioni Spedizioni Internazionali Srl (C-259/16), Federazione Nazionale delle Imprese di Spedizioni Internazionali — Fedespedi (C-259/16), Tnt Global Express SpA (C-259/16), Associazione Italiana dei Corrieri Aerei Internazionali (AICAI) (C-260/16), DHL Express (Italy) Srl (C-260/16), Federal Express Europe Inc. (C-260/16), United Parcel Service Italia Ups Srl (C-260/16)
Defendants: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico
Intervening party: Poste Italiane SpA (C-260/16)
1.Article 2(1), (1a) and (6) 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, is to be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which haulage, freight-forwarding and express mail undertakings providing services involving the clearance, sorting, transport and distribution of postal items constitute, except where their business is limited to the transport of postal items, postal service providers within the meaning of Article 2(1a) of the directive.
2.Articles 2(19) and 9(1) of Directive 97/67, as amended by Directive 2008/6, are to be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires all undertakings providing haulage, freight-forwarding and express mail services to hold a general authorisation for the provision of postal services, provided that such legislation is justified by one of the essential requirements set out in Article 2(19) of the directive and has due regard for the principle of proportionality, in that it is appropriate for the purpose of ensuring the attainment of the objective pursued and does not go beyond what is necessary to attain it, which is a matter for the referring court to verify.
3.Articles 7(4) and 9(2) of Directive 97/67, as amended by Directive 2008/6, are to be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires holders of a general authorisation for the provision of postal services to contribute to a compensation fund for universal service obligations, where, from a user’s perspective, those services may be regarded as falling within the scope of the universal service as they display inter-changeability to a sufficient degree with the universal service.
(*1) OJ C 343, 19.6.2016
ECLI:EU:C:2018:259
* * *