Commission Implementing Decision
of 2 April 2014
exempting certain services in the postal sector in Austria from the application of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors
(notified under document C(2014) 2093)
(Only the German text is authentic)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2014/184/EU)
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Whereas:
On 1 October 2013, Österreichische Post AG (hereinafter referred to as ‘Austrian Post’) transmitted to the Commission, by e-mail, a request pursuant to Article 30(5) of Directive 2004/17/EC. In accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 30(5) of that Directive, the Commission informed the Austrian authorities thereof by letter of 18 October 2013. The Commission requested additional information from the Austrian authorities by e-mail of 5 December 2013, and from the applicant by emails of 4 November 2013, 28 November 2013, 10 January 2014 and 13 January 2014. Additional information was received from the Austrian authorities by e-mail of 18 December 2013, and from the applicant by e-mails of 8 November 2013, 2 December 2013 and 14 January 2014 respectively.
- (a)
postal services for addressed letters between business customers (hereinafter referred to as ‘B2B’) and between business customers and private customers (hereinafter referred to as ‘B2C’) on a national level (‘domestic’ and ‘inbound’);
- (b)
postal services for addressed letters between private customers (hereinafter referred to as ‘C2C’) and between private customers and business customers (hereinafter referred to as ‘C2B’) on a national level (‘domestic’ and ‘inbound’);
- (c)
postal services for addressed international (‘outbound’) letters B2B and B2C (hereinafter referred to as ‘B2X’) as well as C2B and C2C (hereinafter referred to as‘C2X’);
- (d)
postal services for addressed advertising letters on a national and international level;
- (e)
postal services for non-addressed advertising letters, on a national and international level;
- (f)
postal services for addressed and unaddressed newspapers;
- (g)
management services for mailrooms;
- (h)
value-added services linked with electronic media and provided entirely by such media;
- (i)
philately — special postage stamps;
- (j)
financial services.
Direct exposure to competition in a particular market should be evaluated on the basis of various criteria, none of which are, per se, decisive. In respect of the markets concerned by this Decision, the market share of the main players on a given market constitutes one criterion which should be taken into account. Another criterion could be the degree of concentration in those markets. As the conditions vary for the different activities that are concerned by this Decision, the examination of the competitive situation should take into account the different situations in different markets.
Although a narrower or a broader market definition might be envisaged in certain cases, the precise definition of the relevant market can be left open for the purposes of this Decision to the extent that the result of the analysis remains the same whether it is based on a narrow or a broad definition.
It should be kept in mind that the aim of this Decision is to establish whether the services concerned by the request are exposed to such a level of competition (in markets to which access is not restricted within the meaning of Article 30 of Directive 2004/17/EC) which will ensure that, also in the absence of the discipline brought about by the detailed procurement rules set out in Directive 2004/17/EC, procurement for the pursuit of the activities concerned will be carried out in a transparent, non-discriminatory manner based on criteria allowing purchasers to identify the solution which overall is the economically most advantageous one.
In this context, it should be recalled that the product markets defined are generally characterised by the presence of several operators. However, according to the available information, out of those operators, only the Austrian Post is a contracting entity within the meaning of Directive 2004/17/EC. The procurement of Austrian Post's competitors, for the purpose of carrying out the activities concerned by this Decision is not subject to the provisions of Directive 2004/17/EC. Consequently, for the purposes of this Decision and without prejudice to competition law, the market analysis will not focus on the general degree of competition in a given market, but will assess whether or not the activities of Austrian Post are exposed to competition in markets to which access is not restricted.
Given that, in the case of mail delivery services, there are no indications of a wider or smaller geographical scope of the market, for the purposes of evaluating whether the conditions laid down in Article 30(1) of Directive 2004/17/EC are fulfilled, and without prejudice to competition law, the relevant geographic market is considered to be the territory of Austria.
As regards other services than postal services, which are subject to this request, the applicant considers that the markets are national in scope. As the services concerned by the request are domestic services, for the purposes of this Decision, and without prejudice to competition law, the relevant geographic market is considered to be the territory of Austria.
The applicant argues that the delivery mode of business mail is technologically neutral meaning that both modes of delivery — electronic and postal — belong to the same relevant market. This assertion is not in line with the Commission precedents.
It should be noted that according to Union competition rules, substitutability should be analysed, inter alia, on the basis of product characteristics, prices and intended use.
Therefore, there is not robust and conclusive evidence that electronic and postal delivery are actual substitutes.
The applicant's assertion that electronic and postal delivery belong to the same relevant market, therefore cannot be accepted.
While a main effect of the increasing use of electronic means of communication is the reduction of the overall size of the letters market, it cannot be concluded that electronic communication introduced direct competition within the market of postal delivery.
Further distinction could be also envisaged on the basis of the type of consignees: within the B2X segment, a distinction between deliveries to businesses (B2B) and to customers (B2C) since B2C delivery requires a denser network than B2B deliveries.
Nevertheless, it appears that in both scenarios (if B2B and B2C are considered two separate markets or only one market B2X) the result of the assessment of the competitive situation would be the same.
Based on the information above, for the purposes of this Decision and without prejudice to competition law, it can be considered that the relevant product market is the market for postal services for addressed letters B2X, while the precise definition of the relevant market can be left open.
The Commission notes that the postal market has been fully liberalised from January 2011, in line with Directive 2008/6/EC, and that the liberalisation has until now resulted in competitors gaining an aggregate estimated market share of just [… %] even in the most readily competitive segment (B2X addressed letter services).
Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the category of services in question is directly exposed to competition in Austria. Consequently, Article 30(1) of Directive 2004/17/EC does not apply to contracts intended to enable the pursuit of those activities in Austria.
In the case of postal services for addressed letters C2X the applicant also argues that both modes of delivery, electronic and postal, belong to the same market. That assertion is not in line with the Commission precedents.
No further empirical evidence was provided by the applicant to support its assertions, and to demonstrate the substitutability.
Having due regard to the above, it cannot be concluded that electronic and postal delivery for addressed letters C2X belong to the same relevant market.
For the purposes of this Decision and without prejudice to competition law, it can be considered that the relevant product market is postal services for addressed letters C2X.
The market has been fully liberalised from January 2011, in line with Directive 2008/6/EC. The Commission notes that the liberalisation has until now only resulted in competitors gaining an aggregate estimated market share of just [… %].
Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the category of services in question is directly exposed to competition in Austria. Consequently, Article 30(1) of Directive 2004/17/EC does not apply to contracts intended to enable the pursuit of those activities in Austria.
The applicant argues that also for this market the delivery mode of cross-border mail is technologically neutral and that electronic and postal delivery services belong to the same relevant market. That assertion cannot be accepted essentially for the same reasons as described in relation to postal services for domestic and inbound addressed letters B2X and C2X.
As explained in recital 29, for the purposes of this Decision, the inbound mail services were considered as part of the domestic market for postal services for addressed mail for B2X and C2X respectively. Only outbound postal services will therefore be considered the relevant market.
Competition for cross-border letter post is very different for private persons and for companies. Private persons generally have no real choice but to send international mail with their national universal service provider. The volumes sent by private persons are generally too low to offer incentives for new entrants into the market.
It is noted that the competitive situation depends also on the size/population of each city due to the fact that cross-border service providers do not maintain a nationwide access network but generally collect the mail directly at the customer's premises.
There is no evidence that the situation is different in Austria, therefore, for the purposes of this Decision and without prejudice to competition law, two separate product markets will be considered, namely the cross-border postal services for outbound B2X addressed letters and the cross-border postal services for outbound C2X addressed letters.
Addressed advertising mail is defined as mail consisting solely of advertising, marketing or publicity material and comprising an identical message. That type of advertising mail, which can be addressed to companies or to private persons, has to have the customer's name and address on, and the customer's agreement to receive such information.
For the purposes of this Decision and without prejudice to competition law, it can be considered that the relevant product market is postal service for addressed advertising letters.
The postal market for addressed advertising letters has been fully liberalised from January 2011. The Commission notes that the liberalisation has until now resulted in competitors gaining a total aggregated estimated market share of just [… %].
Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the category of services in question is directly exposed to competition in Austria. Consequently, Article 30(1) of Directive 2004/17/EC does not apply to contracts intended to enable the pursuit of those activities in Austria.
Unaddressed advertising mail is characterised by the absence of a particular destination address. It is unsolicited advertising mail, which fulfils certain criteria such as: uniform weight, format, contents and layout for distribution to a group of recipients.
Consequently, the information currently available to the Commission is not conclusive enough to support the market definition proposed by the applicant.
Therefore, for the purposes of this Decision and without prejudice to competition law, the relevant product market is defined as postal services for non-addressed advertising letters.
Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the category of services in question is directly exposed to competition in Austria. Consequently, Article 30(1) of Directive 2004/17/EC does not apply to contracts intended to enable the pursuit of those activities in Austria.
Decision 2007/564/EC made a distinction between early delivery of newspapers and standard delivery.
For the purposes of this Decision and without prejudice to competition law, the relevant product market is postal services for standard delivery for addressed and unaddressed newspapers.
Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the category of services in question is directly exposed to competition in Austria. Consequently, Article 30(1) of Directive 2004/17/EC does not apply to contracts intended to enable the pursuit of those activities in Austria.
Mailroom management offers customers a solution for the processing of mail within an organisation. Depending on the relevant demand, customised solutions are elaborated that include the outsourcing of individual activities or even the entire processing of mail.
The market for mailroom services includes all services that provide support with regard to the internal mail processing within a company. Those internal processes are often outsourced to third parties in order to increase efficiency, and those third parties often combine them with additional activities in order to use the capacity of persons performing that activity to the best possible extent. This is why various office services such as scanning, copying and phone services are provided in addition to the mail processing services.
Mailroom services can be provided in the form of staff leasing or service contracts. Therefore the market comprises the performance of activities in the form of service contracts as well as staff leasing. The applicant provides those services in the form of service contracts.
The cumulated market share of the first two competitors was [… %] in 2010 and 2011 and [… %] in 2012. At that level they are able to bring a significant competitive pressure on Austrian Post.
The factors listed in the above two recitals shall therefore be taken as an indication of direct exposure of the Austrian Post to competition.
Printing services are defined as printing, inserting into envelopes, logistics and processing of materials needed for recurring business processes (invoices, reminders, mailings, reading protocols and wage slips).
In order to increase cost efficiency, such internal processes are often outsourced by companies to third parties.
There is a market for electronic and digital printing processes where the customer transmits the printing data electronically, and all further services for printing, folding, inserting into envelopes, etc. are provided by the service provider. In this way, the customer does not need to purchase the machines required for such services.
The relevant Austrian market is highly fragmented. A large number of businesses are active in this market. However, only one competitor holds a market share of more than [… %].
The factors listed in the above two recitals shall therefore be taken as an indication of direct exposure of the Austrian Post to competition.
The applicant provides a range of address data services to companies which wish to have improved quality data on the stock of addresses of its customers.
The factors listed above shall therefore be taken as an indication of direct exposure of the Austrian Post to competition.
Austrian Post is active on the electronic communication market, where it provides services such as: dispatch module (fully automated, safe delivery of written documents to individual persons); e-invoicing; e-wage slip (wage slips produced directly from the wage accounting system and made available to employees via internet banking). The main part of the business in the electronic mail market is made up by e-invoices.
The factors listed above shall therefore be taken as an indication of direct exposure of the Austrian Post to competition.
Austrian Post is the company responsible for issuing new special Austrian postal stamps. Foreign postal service providers also issue special stamps for the philatelic market. The philatelic market, however, is not limited to the issue of new special stamps, but includes also stamp trading, by auction houses, stamp traders and online sales and auctions.
This factor should therefore be taken as an indication of direct exposure to competition for philatelic services.
In accordance with point (c) of Article 6(2) of Directive 2004/17/EC, the provision of financial services as defined in the fourth indent of said point (c) is covered by that Directive only to the extent that such services are provided by entities which also provide postal services within the meaning of point (b) of that provision.
- (a)
on its own behalf: payment services — cash collection (on the delivery of parcels ‘Nachnahme’) and debt collection services by post delivery staff ‘Postauftrag’;
- (b)
on behalf and for the account of Bank fur Arbeit und Wirtschaft und Österreichische Postsparkasse Aktiengesellschaft (BAWAG PSK): cash withdrawal and cash savings.
Austrian Post provides on its own behalf payment services as listed in point (a) of recital 93. Austrian Post has a market share of less than [… %] and in providing such services is competing with payment services offered by banks and financial institutions, which can bring significant competitive pressure on the Austrian Post.
Those factors should therefore be taken as an indication of direct exposure to competition for payment services provided by Austrian Post on its own behalf.
In the absence of information on the degree of competition in each of those product markets for services provided on behalf of BAWAG PSK, it is not possible to conclude that the conditions for granting an exemption under Article 30(1) of Directive 2004/17/EC are met. Consequently, Article 30(1) of that Directive does not apply to contracts intended to enable the pursuit of those activities in Austria.
- (a)
management services for mailroom;
- (b)
value-added services linked with electronic media and provided entirely by such media;
- (c)
philatelic services;
- (d)
payment services provided on its own behalf.
Since the condition of unrestricted access to the market is deemed to be met, Directive 2004/17/EC should not apply when contracting entities award contracts intended to enable the provision of services listed in points (a) to (d) of recital 99 in Austria, nor when design contests are organised for the pursuit of such activities in that Member State.
This Decision is based on the legal and factual situation from October 2013 to January 2014 as it appears from the information submitted by Austrian Post and the Austrian authorities. It may be revised, should the conditions for the applicability of Article 30(1) of Directive 2004/17/EC be no longer met, following substantial changes in the legal or factual situation.
Nevertheless, the condition of direct exposure to competition laid down in Article 30(1) of Directive 2004/17/EC should be considered not to be met with respect to the other activities subject to the request of Austrian Post, in the territory of Austria.
Since some services subject to this request continue to be subject to Directive 2004/17/EC, it is recalled that procurement contracts covering several activities should be treated in accordance with Article 9 of Directive 2004/17/EC. This means that, where a contracting entity is engaged in ‘mixed’ procurement, that is procurement used to support the performance of both activities exempted from the application of Directive 2004/17/EC and activities not exempted, regard must be had to the activities for which the contract is principally intended. In the event of such mixed procurement, where the purpose is principally to support activities which were not exempted, the provisions of Directive 2004/17/EC are to be applied. Where it is objectively impossible to determine for which activity the contract is principally intended, the contract is to be awarded in accordance with the rules referred to in Article 9(2) and (3) of Directive 2004/17/EC.
The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Advisory Committee for Public Contracts.
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION: