Advanced

Samhällsomfattande posttjänster - en komparativ studie av svensk och brittisk tillämpning av artiklarna 3 – 7 i postdirektivet

Thagesson, Max LU (2010) JURM01 20091
Department of Law
Abstract
This essay compares the different ways that Sweden and Great Britain respectively chose to implement the part of the Postal Directive that include the universal services and the results that have been achieved by each country. It also evaluates the EU's choice of regulatory approach.

The motive behind the Postal Directive, which came into force in 1997, was the EU's desire to assure residents access to universal services at affordable prices. The legislative method from the EU was open and the minimum levels of quality and competition were basically the only things established. The tools to achieve this were left for each member state to decide. In short, the Postal Directive stipulated that letters up to 2 kg and parcels up to 10 kg... (More)
This essay compares the different ways that Sweden and Great Britain respectively chose to implement the part of the Postal Directive that include the universal services and the results that have been achieved by each country. It also evaluates the EU's choice of regulatory approach.

The motive behind the Postal Directive, which came into force in 1997, was the EU's desire to assure residents access to universal services at affordable prices. The legislative method from the EU was open and the minimum levels of quality and competition were basically the only things established. The tools to achieve this were left for each member state to decide. In short, the Postal Directive stipulated that letters up to 2 kg and parcels up to 10 kg are to be collected and distributed every working day and at least 5 days a week and that the tariffs have to be uniform and cost-reflective.

Great Britain chose to introduce requirements for postal operators to be licensed, and to take several small steps in liberalizing the postal market, including maintaining monopoly on small letters until 2006. Sweden chose to liberalize the postal market in a single step, even before the Postal Directive came into force.

In the UK, relatively few regulations was introduced and the regulations that were introduced were not very detailed. Instead of detailed regulation the regulator was given great freedom and responsibility. In Sweden the regulations were more extensive in both number and detail.

Great Britain and Sweden are the countries that have reached the furthest in liberalizing their postal markets. Despite the different approaches, the situation in both countries today is virtually identical. Both countries have a significant number of new players on their postal markets. However, both countries still have a state-owned operator dominating the market. Price levels and service levels are equal and the big players are profitable.

The possibility for each country to comply with their legal traditions enabled a relatively smooth implementation. A greater extent of micromanaging had probably led to either country finding it more difficult to fit in the rules required. EU's open approach also probably led to more transparent legislative prerequisites for the actors on the postal markets as each member state reasonably know their own legislative culture best.

The Postal Directive has had the desired effect in countries like Sweden and the UK, which has a solid infrastructure for postal services and which were early liberalization. Reasonably, this means that even countries that started later with the liberalization process will have good outlooks of succeeding. This in turn lays the foundation for further internationalization and competition. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Denna uppsats jämför de lagstiftningstekniker som valdes av Sverige respektive Storbritannien för att implementera den del av Postdirektivet som omfattar de samhällsomfattande posttjänsterna och vilka resultat respektive land har uppnått. Den utvärderar även EU:s val av regleringsmetod.

Motivet bakom Postdirektivet, som trädde ikraft 1997, var EU:s vilja att försäkra invånarna tillgång till samhällsomfattande posttjänster till rimliga priser. Lagstiftningsmetoden från EU:s sida var öppen och i princip var miniminivåer avseende kvalitet och konkurrens det enda som fastslogs. Vägen och verktygen för att nå dit lämnades upp till respektive medlemsstat. I korthet ställdes krav på att försändelser upp till 2 kg och paket upp till 10 kg... (More)
Denna uppsats jämför de lagstiftningstekniker som valdes av Sverige respektive Storbritannien för att implementera den del av Postdirektivet som omfattar de samhällsomfattande posttjänsterna och vilka resultat respektive land har uppnått. Den utvärderar även EU:s val av regleringsmetod.

Motivet bakom Postdirektivet, som trädde ikraft 1997, var EU:s vilja att försäkra invånarna tillgång till samhällsomfattande posttjänster till rimliga priser. Lagstiftningsmetoden från EU:s sida var öppen och i princip var miniminivåer avseende kvalitet och konkurrens det enda som fastslogs. Vägen och verktygen för att nå dit lämnades upp till respektive medlemsstat. I korthet ställdes krav på att försändelser upp till 2 kg och paket upp till 10 kg regelmässigt ska insamlas och utlämnas varje arbetsdag och minst 5 dagar i veckan till enhetliga och kostnadsreflekterande taxor.

Storbritannien valde att införa krav på licens för postaktörer, samt ta flera små steg i konkurrensutsättandet av posttjänsterna, bland annat genom att behålla monopol på små försändelser fram till 2006. Sverige valde att, redan innan postdirektivet trätt ikraft, avreglera postmarknaden i ett enda steg.

I Storbritannien infördes förhållandevis få regleringar och de regleringar som infördes var inte på en särdeles detaljerad nivå. Istället för detaljreglering gavs tillsynsmyndigheterna stor frihet och stort ansvar. I Sverige reglerades mer i detalj.

Storbritannien och Sverige är de båda länder som kommit längst i Europa med avregleringen av sina postmarknader. Trots de olika tillvägagångssätten är situationen i de båda länderna idag i det närmaste identisk. På båda ländernas postmarknader har ett ansenligt antal nya aktörer tagit sig in. Båda länderna har dock fortfarande en statligt ägd aktör som är dominant på marknaden. Prisnivåerna och servicenivåerna är likvärdiga och de stora aktörerna i respektive land gör positiva resultat.

Möjligheten för respektive land att följa sina rättstraditioner möjliggjorde i sin tur en relativt smidig implementering. Hade EU valt att detaljstyra i större utsträckning så hade rimligtvis något av länderna fått svårare att passa in de regler som krävdes. EU:s öppna förhållningssätt torde även ha gett ökad transparens för aktörerna på respektive postmarknad eftersom varje medlemsstat rimligen känner sin lagstiftningskultur bäst.

Postdirektivet har fått önskad effekt i länder som Sverige och Storbritannien, som har en god infrastruktur för posttjänster och som var tidigt ute med avreglering. Rimligen innebär detta att även de länder som kommit igång senare med motsvarande process kommer att ha goda möjligheter att lyckas. Detta i sin tur lägger grunden för ytterligare internationalisering och konkurrensutsättning. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Thagesson, Max LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Universal Services in the Postal Sector - a Comparative Study of Swedish and British Implementation of Articles 3 - 7 of the Postal Directive
course
JURM01 20091
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
samhällsomfattande tjänster, postdirektivet, komparativ rätt, EU-rätt, förvaltningsrätt
language
Swedish
id
1691560
date added to LUP
2010-11-03 15:42:35
date last changed
2010-11-03 15:42:35
@misc{1691560,
  abstract     = {This essay compares the different ways that Sweden and Great Britain respectively chose to implement the part of the Postal Directive that include the universal services and the results that have been achieved by each country. It also evaluates the EU's choice of regulatory approach.

The motive behind the Postal Directive, which came into force in 1997, was the EU's desire to assure residents access to universal services at affordable prices. The legislative method from the EU was open and the minimum levels of quality and competition were basically the only things established. The tools to achieve this were left for each member state to decide. In short, the Postal Directive stipulated that letters up to 2 kg and parcels up to 10 kg are to be collected and distributed every working day and at least 5 days a week and that the tariffs have to be uniform and cost-reflective.

Great Britain chose to introduce requirements for postal operators to be licensed, and to take several small steps in liberalizing the postal market, including maintaining monopoly on small letters until 2006. Sweden chose to liberalize the postal market in a single step, even before the Postal Directive came into force.

In the UK, relatively few regulations was introduced and the regulations that were introduced were not very detailed. Instead of detailed regulation the regulator was given great freedom and responsibility. In Sweden the regulations were more extensive in both number and detail.

Great Britain and Sweden are the countries that have reached the furthest in liberalizing their postal markets. Despite the different approaches, the situation in both countries today is virtually identical. Both countries have a significant number of new players on their postal markets. However, both countries still have a state-owned operator dominating the market. Price levels and service levels are equal and the big players are profitable.

The possibility for each country to comply with their legal traditions enabled a relatively smooth implementation. A greater extent of micromanaging had probably led to either country finding it more difficult to fit in the rules required. EU's open approach also probably led to more transparent legislative prerequisites for the actors on the postal markets as each member state reasonably know their own legislative culture best.

The Postal Directive has had the desired effect in countries like Sweden and the UK, which has a solid infrastructure for postal services and which were early liberalization. Reasonably, this means that even countries that started later with the liberalization process will have good outlooks of succeeding. This in turn lays the foundation for further internationalization and competition.},
  author       = {Thagesson, Max},
  keyword      = {samhällsomfattande tjänster,postdirektivet,komparativ rätt,EU-rätt,förvaltningsrätt},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Samhällsomfattande posttjänster - en komparativ studie av svensk och brittisk tillämpning av artiklarna 3 – 7 i postdirektivet},
  year         = {2010},
}