Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-02-13-Speech-2-179"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070213.17.2-179"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Question no 44 by Alain Hutchinson ()
On 18 October 2006 the Commission adopted the draft directivefinal amending Directive 97/67/EC concerning the full accomplishment of the internal market of Community postal services. This proposes full liberalisation of postal services, that is, to include small postal items weighing less than 50 grams. Two aspects are often criticised: that the Commission has chosen to maintain the date of 1 January 2009 for the directive to enter into force, although it is well known that many Member States will not be ready by that date, and that it has made insufficient provision for financing the universal postal service, which 10 traditional postal service operators have criticised.
What is the Commission’s response to these criticisms? Has the Commission examined carefully and in detail the impact of full liberalisation of postal services in Sweden, where it had been expected for many years? In Sweden, was there an increase in the cost of stamps for small postal items, and were there public sector job losses? If so, in what proportion? How satisfied are the Swedes following this liberalisation? The Swedish experience is a concrete example and not the result of a study or theoretical or ideological speculation. Has it been a clear success?"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Subject: Full liberalisation of postal services on 1 January 2009"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples