On 17 December 2024, the Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (CBb) ruled in a long-running case concerning the delivery quality of registered mail.
The complaint of a private individual about the delivery of medical devices and registered items by PostNL has been declared unfounded. The CBb ruled that the complainant did not have interested party and that the Netherlands Authority for Consumers & Markets (ACM) has taken unjustified measures against PostNL. This puts an end to a legal battle that has been going on since 2021.
medical devices
The case started when a private individual requested the ACM to take enforcement action against PostNL. He or she stated that registered mail, including medical devices, was structurally not being delivered correctly. The complaints included unattended mail, unlawful signatures by deliverers and deliveries to neighbours without permission.
The complainant argued that this had serious consequences, because a family member is dependent on medical devices sent by post. He emphasized that as a sender of registered mail, he was also financially affected when shipments did not arrive correctly. According to him, the complaints were structural and not incidental, which he substantiated with documents and correspondence with PostNL.
previous statement
Initially, the Rotterdam District Court ruled that the complainant could be considered an interested party. The court found that he was personally affected in his interests by the delivery problems. This applied to both his role as a recipient of medical devices and his role as a sender of registered documents, including theses. The court then ordered the ACM to reassess the enforcement request of the complainant.
The ACM then imposed a penalty payment order on PostNL. PostNL was required to improve the quality of registered mail and to meet a standard of 99% correct delivery from March 2024. For each day that PostNL failed to meet this standard, a penalty payment of 50.000 euros would follow, with a maximum of 1 million euros.
On appeal it was judgment of the court however destroyed. The CBb ruled that the complainant did not interested party is within the meaning of the General Administrative Law Act (Awb). An interested party must personal, current and sufficiently distinctive interest The fact that this involved medical devices did not, according to the CBb, give the complainant any distinguishing interest compared to other recipients of registered mail.
The CBb considered that registered mail items are by definition valuable or important, which is also the reason that senders opt for this more expensive service. The problems that the complainant experienced, however serious, do not make his interest unique or special compared to other PostNL customers.
In addition, the CBb found that most medical devices and business shipments did not go through the Universal Postal Service (UPD) were sent, but if bulk mail. Bulk mail falls outside the scope of the Postal Act 2009 and can therefore not lead to enforcement by the ACM.
enforcement without basis
Another important part of the ruling concerns the authority of the ACM to enforce the delivery quality of registered UPD mail. The CBb determined that Article 16, paragraph 2009, of the Postal Act 99 does not provide a basis for the enforcement action of the ACM in this case. According to the CBb, the Postal Act does contain a general quality standard, but lacks a specific statutory standard that registered mail must meet. The ACM itself is not allowed to formulate or operationalise quality requirements, such as setting a lower limit of XNUMX% correct delivery. This would have to be done by means of a general administrative measure (AMvB), which was not the case here.
With this ruling, the penalty imposed by the ACM on PostNL will lapse. The CBb also annulled all previous decisions by the ACM in this case, including the recovery decision of September 2022 and the further decision-making of May 2023.
response from PostNL and ACM
PostNL was pleased with the ruling. The company emphasized that it is continuously working on improving the quality of delivery, but that incidental errors can never be completely ruled out. According to PostNL, the delivery of registered mail remains an intensive and careful process.
The ACM indicated that it had taken note of the ruling and was considering possible follow-up steps. Although the ruling makes it clear that there is currently no basis for enforcement, the supervisory authority remains involved in compliance with the rules within the postal sector.
This ruling puts an end to a legal battle that lasted more than three years. The complainant, who initially won in court, saw his appeal declared unfounded and his objections rejected. The ruling of the CBb has major consequences for the supervision of the quality of registered UPD mail. As long as no specific legal standard is established, the ACM cannot take enforcement action here.
