Competition: CFI supports the Commission’s approach towards postal remailing 1

In a series of four judgments, the CFI has broadly supported the Commission's apparent reluctance to investigate allegations concerning the provision of postal remailing services. The cases relate to a series of complaints lodged by International Express Carriers Conference (IECC) (representing express mailing companies offering remailing as part of their service) with the European Commission, all with different results:

• In July 1988 IECC lodged a complaint under Article 85 of the Treaty against a mutual price fixing agreement by Public Postal Services (PPS) concerning international mail (CEPT agreement), and against attempts by PPS to discourage companies from using private indirect mailing services. Allegedly some went so far as to intercept mail posted under universal postal union convention. As the Commission was slow to act, the IECC took the case to the Court of First Instance. Since then the Commission has acted swiftly and the Court concluded there is no longer any need for a ruling on this matter.
• In February 1995 the Commission rejected the first part of the complaint, arguing that the CEPT agreement was to be replaced by a new agreement entitled REIMS and covering charging criteria, a decision the IECC subsequently attacked. The CFI rejected the proceedings for annulment, concluding that the Commission could legitimately invoke the existence of the REIMS project, even if not fully concluded, since it responded to tariff objections raised both by the Commission and the IECC, and stood every chance of being realised.
• The Commission also rejected the second part of the complaint arguing that the interception of indirect mail was not an abuse of dominant position since the activity was motivated by the need of public postal services to protect against the weakening of their national monopolies. The CFI has repealed this part of the decision on the basis that, ipso facto, a practice does not constitute an actual abuse simply by reference to the need to protect a dominant position.
• Finally in August 1995 the Commission rejected a complaint concerning the interception of indirect mail, noting that PPS had since discontinued such activities and invoking the international convention. IECC appealed against its decision but the Court has now confirmed that the Commission was justified in opting not to pursue the complaint.