ECLI:EU:C:2026:574

Full text

Provisional text

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL

M. CAMPOS SÁNCHEZ-BORDONA

delivered on 9 July 2026 (1)

Joined Cases C‑535/25 to C‑537/25

Amazon Italia Logistica Srl (C‑535/25),

Amazon Italia Services Srl (C‑536/25),

Amazon Italia Transport Srl (C‑537/25)

Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni,

intervener:

Ministero delle Imprese e del Made in Italy

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State, Italy))

( Preliminary ruling proceedings – Postal services in the European Union – Directive 97/67/EC – Articles 2 and 9 – General authorisation – Group of undertakings dealing with the delivery to final customers of goods sold by third parties – Undertakings forming part of that group which provide a postal service – Definition of postal service provider – National legislation which requires those undertakings to hold a general authorisation )

1. In recent years, the increase in e-commerce has led to profound changes in the postal sector and adjacent sectors (including the logistics sector), whose operators rely on new business models which go beyond the traditional definition of ‘postal services’. (2)

2. One such operator is Amazon, (3) which, through its digital marketplace, acts as an intermediary in the sale of items offered by third-party sellers. It does so by providing its customers with integrated storage, packing and distribution services for the goods sold.

3. The Court must consider whether, and to what extent, the activity at issue in all the main proceedings, which is performed by three undertakings in the Amazon group, (4) constitutes a ‘postal service’. If that is the case, the activity will be subject to the authorisation scheme laid down in Article 9 of Directive 97/67/EC. (5)

4. Specifically because they did not hold that authorisation, the Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni (AGCOM) (Communications Regulatory Authority, Italy) imposed a penalty on each of the three appellant undertakings.

I. Legislative framework

A. European Union law. Directive 97/67

5. In accordance with Article 2:

‘For the purposes of this Directive, the following definitions shall apply:

1. postal services: services involving the clearance, sorting, transport and distribution of postal items;

1a. postal service provider: undertaking that provides one or more postal services;

…

4. clearance: the operation of collecting postal items by a postal service provider;

5. distribution: the process from sorting at the distribution centre to delivery of postal items to their addressees;

6. postal item: an item addressed in the final form in which it is to be carried by a postal service provider. In addition to items of correspondence, such items also include for instance books, catalogues, newspapers, periodicals and postal parcels containing merchandise with or without commercial value;

…

14. authorisations: any permission setting out rights and obligations specific to the postal sector and allowing undertakings to provide postal services and, where applicable, to establish and/or operate their networks for the provision of such services, in the form of a general authorisation or individual licence …

…

19. essential requirements: general non-economic reasons which can induce a Member State to impose conditions on the supply of postal services. These reasons are the confidentiality of correspondence, security of the network as regards the transport of dangerous goods, respect for the terms and conditions of employment, social security schemes … and, where justified, data protection, environmental protection and regional planning. Data protection may include personal data protection, the confidentiality of information transmitted or stored and protection of privacy;

…’

6. Article 9 reads:

‘1. For services which fall outside the scope of the universal service, Member States may introduce general authorisations to the extent necessary to guarantee compliance with the essential requirements.

…’

B. Italian law

7. Directive 97/67 was transposed into Italian law by decreto legislativo n. 261/1999 – Attuazione della direttiva 97/67/CE concernente regole comuni per lo sviluppo del mercato interno dei servizi postali comunitari e per il miglioramento della qualità del servizio, (6) Article 1 of which lays down definitions which are essentially the same as those in Article 2 of the directive.

8. Delibera n.º129/15/CONS – Regolamento in materia di titoli abilitativi per l’offerta al pubblico di servizi postali (7) is applicable ratione temporis; Article 8 of Annex A thereto (‘Postal services subject to general authorisation’) provides:

‘1. The provision to the public of postal services falling outside the scope of the universal service within the meaning of Legislative Decree No 261/1999 shall be subject to the grant of a general authorisation.

2. A general authorisation shall be required even for the performance of one of the phases of the activities for the provision of postal services referred to in paragraph 1 and for the provision of postal services of added value.’

II. The facts, the disputes and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling

9. By a decision of 25 July 2018, (8) AGCOM imposed a penalty on the three Amazon group companies after finding that, without holding the authorisation required by the Italian legislation, those companies offered, ‘for products [sold] on their marketplace[,] a service for delivery to the final customer which does not differ in any way from the delivery service provided by other postal operators … and includes the ordinary processing phases of the postal cycle …’

10. It is apparent from the case file that Amazon acts as an intermediary in the sale of items sold by third-party sellers through the Amazon Marketplace. Its business model is structured as follows:

– A third-party seller sends the merchandise to Amazon’s (AIL) logistics centre using a transport operator. The merchandise remains the property of the seller at all times.

– Amazon (AIL) receives, sorts and stores the merchandise.

– Upon receipt of the customer’s order, Amazon (AIL) collects the merchandise from its warehouses, packages it and labels it (after checking its specific characteristics, such as the weight and dimensions).

– When the purchased product is ready to be dispatched, sorting takes place in stages. (9) Initially, AIL allocates parcels that are already labelled between the couriers responsible for delivery, which may, as appropriate, be undertakings already operating on the market or Amazon Logistics.

– If delivery is entrusted to Amazon Logistics (a business unit of AIT), AIT collects (10) the goods from AIL’s logistics centres to take them to the delivery stations, (11) which are managed by AIT.

– A second sorting activity is carried out at the delivery stations through the allocation of parcels to different local couriers with which Amazon collaborates at local level. (12)

– The local operators, under the management of AIT, (13) deal with delivery to the final customer (the so-called ‘last mile’).

– Delivery to the final customer may be made to the delivery address indicated by the addressee of the goods or, if the addressee so requests, using the lockers managed by AIS.

– AIS ‘does not merely make available physical spaces used by third parties for the delivery of postal items’; rather, it ‘manages’ them by remotely controlling those lockers, monitoring the deposit of postal items into them by couriers and their subsequent collection by addressees. (14)

11. In the light of those facts, AGCOM held that:

– The packaging and labelling activity carried out by AIL is not, as such, ‘postal’ in nature. However, the immediately subsequent activities, whereby packaged and labelled articles become a ‘final item’ and are allocated between different couriers on the basis of delivery times and areas served, are ‘postal’ in nature. Those activities are part of the ‘sorting’ phase that characterises the business cycle of all postal operators. (15)

– The locker management activity carried out by AIS ‘is a postal activity and the particular innovations made to the model do not alter its substance, let alone the classification and categorisation of that method of delivery within the corresponding phase of performance of the postal service’ (distribution).

– AIT and AIL set up, ‘without having obtained the required authorisation, a single organised network for the performance of certain phases of the postal service, by establishing its legal, technical and economic conditions, and by using, for the delivery phase, seven companies which did not hold a general authorisation to provide that service.’ The local operators ‘do not retain any autonomy or independence’ as a result of the strict instructions issued by AIT, which may thus be regarded as exercising ‘dominus’ [effective control] over the service.

12. The Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Regional Administrative Court, Lazio, Italy), before which AIL, AIT and AIS separately challenged the AGCOM decision, essentially confirmed that decision.

13. Against that background, the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State, Italy), which is seised of the appeals lodged by AIL, AIT and AIS, has referred the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling in the three cases:

‘Do Articles 2 and 9 of [Directive 97/67] preclude national legislation which makes activities of the kind carried out by [AIL, AIS and AIT] and described in [AGCOM Decision No 400/18/CONS] subject to the authorisation regime laid down in respect of the provision of postal services to the public?’

III. Procedure before the Court of Justice

14. The three requests for a preliminary ruling were received at the Registry of the Court on 6 August 2025. In view of their close connection, it was decided to join the cases.

15. Written observations were lodged by AIL, AIS and AIT (jointly), the Spanish, Italian, Netherlands and Norwegian governments, and the European Commission.

16. It was not considered necessary to hold a hearing.

IV. Admissibility

17. The Italian Government submits that the three references for a preliminary ruling are inadmissible due to the inadequate account of the facts, in so far as they do not clarify with sufficient precision:

– whether the question relates in general to all the activities carried out by each of the undertakings involved (including activities which, in subsequent or earlier stages, the other appellant undertakings do not carry out) or, by contrast, only to the activities carried out successively in a single supply chain by AIL, AIT and AIS; (16)

– whether the question encompasses the classification as ‘postal services’ of the activities individually carried out by each company or, rather, the overall activity resulting from coordination between those companies. (17)

18. I disagree with the Italian Government’s plea and believe, on the contrary, that the references for a preliminary ruling are admissible.

19. Admittedly, the (sole) question referred is succinctly worded and framed in essentially identical terms in all three cases, even though the issues in each are different.

20. However, the national court sets out its uncertainties in terms which enable an understanding of the reasons on which the references are based. It seeks to ascertain, in essence:

– Whether the allocation of parcels by AIL after labelling may be regarded as ‘sorting’ of a ‘postal item’ (Case C‑535/25).

– Whether the management of lockers by AIS is part of the ‘distribution’ phase of a postal item (Case C‑536/25).

– Whether a company (AIT) is a ‘postal service provider’, even where it does not substantively carry out the task of delivery of postal parcels but organises that task by exercising ‘powers of management and coordination’ over the local operators which collaborate with it (Case C‑537/25).

– Whether, and to what extent, the connection between the activities carried out by AIL, AIS and AIT may be of relevance to the classification of the services described above as ‘postal services’. (18)

– Whether there is a ‘provision of postal services to the public’ when the services provided are not directed indiscriminately at all users and there are no offices open to the public (Case C‑535/25, also relevant to Cases C‑536/25 and C‑537/25). (19)

21. The arguments put forward by the parties and interveners in these proceedings show their understanding of the issues in contention. The Court therefore has sufficient information at its disposal to enable it to resolve those issues, despite the Italian Government’s plea.

22. In particular, the way in which the activities of the three Amazon companies are carried out is described (in the orders for reference and in the parties’ observations) in sufficient detail to explain the uncertainties of the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State) and to enable the Court to give a reply. (20)

V. Analysis

A. Preliminary points

23. A substantive difficulty underlying these references for a preliminary ruling is that the definitions in Directive 97/67 are unsuitable for application to trading platforms such as Amazon.

24. Directive 97/67 was adopted in a context focused on the ‘traditional’ postal service. In 1997, the postal service was entrusted to operators tasked primarily with the management and distribution of mail, consisting mainly of letters and parcels.

25. The liberalisation promoted by Directive 2008/6 moved the cornerstone of the system from universal service to a context open to competition: it favoured the entry into the market of operators whose services, while retaining a degree of functional equivalence to those of the ‘traditional’ postal operator, focused on others, such as express courier services. In the judgment in Confetra, (21) the Court confirmed that those services fall within the scope of Directive 97/67 and the authorisation scheme laid down therein.

26. The consolidation of new business models, based on e-commerce and the delivery of goods to the end customer’s home, increased the number of economic operators involved. Their services, which are partly the same as and partly replace those of ‘traditional’ postal operators, do not readily satisfy the traditional definition of ‘postal service’. (22)

27. In this new climate, some of the definitions in Directive 97/67, which were designed for the traditional postal model, are insufficient if not obsolete.(23) In particular, the definition of ‘postal item’, on which the whole system is based, is tainted by a striking circularity, (24) which undermines its clarity and makes it difficult to apply to specific situations. Directive 2008/6 filled those gaps only in a limited way. (25)

28. The interpretation of Directive 97/67, as amended by Directive 2008/6, may take account of other subsequent legislative instruments, like Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 (26) and Regulation (EU) 2018/644, (27) to which I shall turn below.

29. In particular, Regulation 2018/644, although not applicable ratione materiae to these cases, may provide useful criteria for the interpretation of Directive 97/67, in the light of the complementary relationship between the two instruments . (28)

30. It should be noted, nonetheless, that, in a reference for a preliminary ruling which arose as a result of a dispute between AGCOM and a number of economic operators, including AIL and AIT, the Court (29) at that time implicitly categorised the latter as ‘parcel delivery service providers’; parcel delivery services are ‘postal services’ for the purposes of Article 2(1) and (3) of Regulation 2018/644. (30)

31. Having made those points, I shall now examine separately each of the three references for a preliminary ruling.

B. Case C‑535/25

32. The Consiglio di Stato (Council of State) asks whether AIL’s activity can be classified as the ‘provision of postal services to the public’. (31)

33. The Consiglio di Stato (Council of State) states that it is necessary to determine, first of all, ‘when the activities carried out by a particular operator may be classified as “postal” in nature’, for which purpose the definitions of both ‘postal item’ and ‘sorting’ are relevant. The Consiglio di Stato (Council of State) states in addition that ‘another interpretative issue underlying the question raised relates to the cases in which postal services may be regarded as “provi[ded] to the public”’.

1. ‘Sorting’ of a ‘postal item’

34. For an activity to come within the scope of Directive 97/67:

– It must entail the provision of at least one of the ‘postal services’ set out in Article 2(1) of the directive. (32)

– The service thus provided must also relate to a ‘postal item’. (33)

(a) ‘Postal’ nature of an item

35. I agree with the referring court (34) that the core issue relates to the concept of a ‘postal item’. That is the basis for ‘the dividing line between “postal services” and services which, even if they consist of the same substantive activities, are not “postal services” in so far as they do not involve “postal items”’.

36. Article 2(6) of Directive 97/67 defines ‘postal item’ as ‘an item addressed in the final form in which it is to be carried by a postal service provider’.

37. On the basis of that definition, AGCOM and the lower court held that ‘an item is a postal item when, at the end of the labelling process, it is in its proper form for submission to the postal processing cycle’. (35) The activity which AIL carries out after labelling was therefore a postal service and ‘falls within the concept of sorting within the meaning of Directive 97/67’. (36)

38. Amazon disagrees with that position. It submits that AIL’s activities are logistical in nature, merely ‘preparatory’, and carried out ‘when the postal processing cycle has not yet been launched’. (37)

39. In support of its stance, Amazon relies essentially on three arguments concerning: (a) the definition of ‘postal item’; (b) the link between the activities of ‘clearance’ and ‘sorting’ of a ‘postal item’; and (c) the need to identify the objective boundary between a ‘logistical’ activity and the postal sector. (38)

(1) Definition of ‘postal item’

40. Amazon refers to the wording of the definition of ‘postal item’ (Article 2(6) of Directive 97/67), arguing that all the language versions of that provision focus on ‘the chronological moment’ when the postal operator ‘takes control’ of the item ‘for delivery’. (39)

41. It concludes from this that goods sold on its digital marketplace ‘cannot become postal items simply as a result of the affixing of a label’ by AIL. In its submission, the ‘postal’ nature arises ‘only when [those items] are entrusted physically to a postal operator for delivery’. (40)

42. In my view, the different language versions of Article 2(6) of Directive 97/67 do not support Amazon’s position. In fact, only the Italian version refers to the ‘moment’ (in the chronological sense) when the item is physically accepted by the carrier for delivery. (41) That does not occur, however, in the other language versions which I have been able to look at, where the emphasis is placed, rather, on the form (substantive form) which the item acquires at a time prior to being transported. (42)

43. The wording of those language versions does not suggest that only the substantive handing over to the carrier determines the conversion of the item into a ‘postal item’. They do not exclude the possibility that, between the moment when the item acquires its final form and the moment when it is accepted for the purposes of transport, other actions take place, carried out, as the case may be, by the same undertaking which dealt with packaging and labelling, (43) which may be classified as ‘clearance’ and ‘sorting’.

(2) No ‘clearance’

44. Secondly, Amazon draws attention to the sequence of the stages of the postal cycle which follows from Article 2(1) of Directive 97/67. It maintains, on that basis, that AIL cannot carry out any ‘sorting’ activity between ‘clearance’ and ‘distribution’ because it manages the goods when no ‘clearance’ has yet taken place. (44)

45. In Amazon’s submission, when a product is stored as stock, it remains a ‘non-final item’ and does not become ‘postal’ in nature until such time as an actual ‘clearance’ operation is carried out (by the carrier). In AIL’s case, in the absence of such clearance, the ‘sorting’ activity is not a ‘postal service’ but rather ‘logistical’ and preparatory.

46. When examining Amazon’s argument, account must be taken of the alteration of the definition of ‘clearance’ as a result of the amendment laid down by Directive 2008/6.

47. The original wording of Article 2(4) of Directive 97/67 defined clearance as ‘the operation of collecting postal items deposited at access points’. (45) However, the reference to ‘access points’ (46) has been removed from the current version. (47) The removal of that term means that the previous definition, pursuant to which ‘clearance’ meant the collection of a postal item from a ‘physical facility’ ‘provided for the public …’, following the ‘deposit’ of that postal item by the ‘customer/sender’, no longer exists.

48. Broadening the scope of ‘clearance’ is consistent with the aim of enabling postal service providers to diversify their activities ‘by providing electronic business services or other information society services’ (recital 14 of Directive 2008/6).

49. Thus, the current definition of ‘clearance’ can fit a business model in which a sender does not ‘deposit’ a ‘postal item’ which has already been packaged at the premises of a postal service provider but rather a product which that provider stores and later transforms into a ‘postal item’ when it prepares orders. (48)

(3) The difference between ‘logistical’ services and ‘postal’ services

50. I am not persuaded either by Amazon’s argument concerning Regulation 2019/1020. That regulation is aimed not at establishing a legislative framework for ‘logistical services’ (49) but rather at ‘… ensuring that only compliant products that fulfil requirements providing a high level of protection of public interests … are made available on the Union market.’ (50)

51. Regulation 2019/1020 deals only in passing (51) with the concept of ‘fulfilment service provider’, which is defined in Article 3(11) of the regulation. The term means ‘any natural or legal person offering, in the course of commercial activity, at least two of the following services: warehousing, packaging, addressing and dispatching, without having ownership of the products involved, excluding postal services as defined in point 1 of Article 2 of Directive [97/67] …’ (emphasis added).

52. The referring court and Amazon disagree about the interpretation of that exclusion of postal services:

– In Amazon’s view, ‘it is clear from that definition that an undertaking may carry out the four activities of warehousing, packaging, addressing and dispatching (as in the case of AIL) without therefore being a “postal service provider”’. (52)

– The referring court, on the other hand, takes the view that the definition confirms that ‘the same substantive logistical activities may or may not be postal in nature, depending on whether or not they concern “postal items”’. (53)

53. I believe that the latter interpretation is correct.

54. From a substantive point of view, ‘logistical’ and ‘postal’ activities have features in common. The difficulties in defining them are due to the fact that, in the sphere of postal activities, the implementation of logistical strategies, defined as all the means and methods necessary for the efficient management of the postal supply chain, is unavoidable.

55. The drafting history of Regulation 2019/1020, (54) together with the regulation’s aims, confirm that the exception clause included in Article 3(11) thereof is intended to ensure that a provider which provides postal services alone is not made subject to the rules on responsibility which Regulation 2019/1020 imposes on fulfilment service providers.

56. In the system of Regulation 2019/1020, fulfilment service providers are involved in the making available of a product on the European market. (55) On that basis, they may be made subject, in the alternative, to the same obligations which apply to an importer in matters relating to fulfilment of the requirements of the legislation on compliance of products made available on the market. (56)

57. It may be assumed that anyone participating in the commercial supply chain has the information necessary to fulfil those obligations, which cannot be said of someone who merely provides postal services alone. The latter is not involved in the making available of products on the market, and merely deals with items which have already been packaged ‘in their final form’. Therefore, they do not have detailed knowledge of the contents of those items, from which it follows that they are not required to fulfil the compliance obligations.

58. In my view, the exclusion I am examining here is not intended to exempt, in general, ‘fulfilment service providers’ from the application of Directive 97/67, where those operators are involved in both the making available of products on the market and the distribution of those products through a service that is postal in nature.

59. The respective aims of Directive 97/67 and Regulation 2019/1020 are not mutually exclusive. (57) Therefore, there is nothing to prevent their cumulative application if, owing to the nature of the activity carried out by a particular operator, it is necessary to ensure compliance with both.

60. I agree, therefore, with the referring court that the decisive matter is to determine whether AIL manages ‘postal items’ and, if that is the case, from what point it does so.

61. As the ERGP report points out, clarification of the concept of ‘postal item’ by the EU legislature is the best solution to the problem. However, under the law as it stands, it is necessary to comply with Directive 97/67, referring to Regulation 2018/644 as appropriate.

62. The definition of ‘postal item’ in Article 2(6) of Directive 97/67 contains a list which, while not exhaustive, includes items which present fairly homogenous characteristics. That list includes ‘postal parcels containing merchandise with or without commercial value’, a concept which is certainly very broad.

63. Regulation 2018/644 may be helpful for the purposes of providing a more precise definition of that concept; Article 2(1) (58) of that regulation stipulates that a parcel is a postal item containing goods with or without commercial value, other than an item of correspondence, with a weight not exceeding 31.5 kg. That and other characteristics of the product (such as the form which the order acquires once the preparatory packaging and labelling stage is complete) may be relevant, in so far as a ‘postal item’ must not only be addressed to a specified recipient but must also be presented in a final form and alteration of its contents must no longer be possible.

(b) The ‘sorting’ of items

64. In the light of the information which is apparent from the case file, and without prejudice to the final assessment which it falls to the referring court to carry out, all the indications are that, as AGCOM asserts, AIL processes items which are already ‘postal’ in nature.

65. On that basis, AIL will be subject to Directive 97/67 (including the authorisation scheme laid down therein) if its activities concerning those ‘postal items’ come substantively within one or more of the stages referred to in Article 2(1) (clearance, sorting, transport and distribution).

66. The order for reference focuses, inter alia, on the activity of ‘sorting’, which is not expressly defined in Directive 97/67. Having regard to the usual interpretative criteria, (59) ‘sorting’ includes all the activities which, in general, are carried out after the clearance of items (60) and are aimed at ensuring the correct and efficient performance of the subsequent stages of transport and distribution.

67. I agree with the Commission that consideration must be given to ‘the activities specifically carried out by the person concerned … in order to assess their involvement in the postal cycle and the functional connection between sorting activities and the subsequent stages of transport and distribution. (61)

68. From that perspective, there is ‘sorting’ of postal items where the ‘active conduct’ of the economic operator:

– takes the form of the separation and organisation of items, in accordance with territorial, logistical and operational criteria, in order to include them in the postal processing cycle;

– enables the optimisation of transport routes, the reduction of journey times, the efficient allocation of resources or has similar aims.

69. It is for the referring court, which alone has full knowledge of the facts, to establish whether the activities carried out by AIL are covered by that definition.

2. The ‘provision to the public’ of postal services

70. The Consiglio di Stato (Council of State) asks, in that context, about ‘the cases in which postal services may be regarded as “provi[ded] to the public”’. (62)

71. The question relates to Amazon’s assertion alleging that it ‘does not offer “undifferentiated” postal services to anyone requiring the logistical management of a good for the purposes of its dispatch, and does not have premises and/or offices open to the public’. (63)

72. I agree with the referring court, the Commission and the Spanish Government that the provision of services in an undifferentiated way to ‘all users’, in premises open to the public where anyone may deposit items, is a typical requirement of universal service, (64) but not of all postal services.

73. The existence of ‘letter boxes provided for the public either on the public highway or at the premises of the postal service provider(s)’ is mentioned solely (but non-exhaustively) in relation to ‘access points’. It should be recalled that the concept of ‘access points’ was removed from the definition of ‘clearance’, which was applicable to any ‘postal service provider’, and, in the current version of Directive 97/67, is used only in relation to the universal service provider. (65)

74. I believe, therefore, that the ‘provision to the public’ of postal services does not mean that those services must be provided in an undifferentiated way to all users through premises or offices open to the public.

3. Intermediate conclusion

75. In the light of the foregoing considerations, and subject always to the assessment of the facts which is the responsibility of the referring court, I believe that the activity consisting of the allocation of pre-packaged and pre-labelled goods between different carriers by means of an active selection, in accordance with logistical criteria which take account of delivery times and areas served, may constitute the ‘sorting of postal items’ for the purposes of Directive 97/67.

C. Case C‑536/25

76. AIS manages the lockers used for the delivery and collection of ‘postal items’ containing goods made available on the market through Amazon. (66) The referring court asks whether that activity constitutes a ‘postal service’ in accordance with Article 2(1) of Directive 97/67 and whether AIS is, therefore, a ‘postal service provider’ for the purposes of Article 2(1a) of that directive.

77. The referring court, (67) the Spanish and Italian governments (68) and the Commission (69) all argue that that activity is caught by the definition of ‘distribution of postal items’, (70) which is the final stage of the postal cycle in accordance with Article 2(1) of Directive 97/67.

78. Amazon disputes that classification. It claims that the deposit in a locker is merely an ‘alternative’ to delivery to the recipient’s home letterbox: (71) the postal cycle therefore ends with that deposit. (72) In its submission, lockers are a ‘point of contact’, the management of which, like that of the letterboxes which constitute ‘access points’, is excluded from ‘postal services’. (73)

79. Once again, I disagree with Amazon’s position. (74)

80. The deposit of an item in a recipient’s home letterbox differs from a deposit in the lockers managed by AIS:

– I agree with Amazon that letterboxes, where they operate as mere ‘access’ or ‘exit’ points for the postal network, must be treated as external to that network. Their management is merely passive (as reflected by Article 2(4) of Directive 97/67), since a letterbox is simply a place where the persons concerned (sender and addressee) may ‘deposit’ or ‘collect’ an item. The postal service, in that context, is provided only by the provider who performs ‘clearance’ and ‘distribution’.

– By contrast, as the referring court rightly observes, the active nature of the management of lockers (75) by AIS overturns the ‘clear parallel’ which Amazon attempts to draw between those lockers and letterboxes. An item deposited in a locker is under the protection and active supervision of AIS until it is collected by the addressee. If the product is not collected within the periods set by AIS, the item is returned to the sender, without the need for any involvement on the part of the addressee. (76)

81. The automatic return to the sender, which does not happen in the case of an item deposited in a home letterbox, confirms the ‘active’ nature of the management of the lockers and that deposit in a locker does not determine the item’s ‘exit’ from the postal processing cycle: genuine ‘delivery of the item to the addressee’, within the meaning of Article 2(5) of Directive 97/67, does not take place until the item is actually collected by that addressee.

82. That approach is confirmed by a systematic and purposive interpretation of Article 2(5) of Directive 97/67.

83. From a systematic point of view, the reply which I propose is compatible with the definition of ‘delivery’ in Directive 2011/83/EU: (77) in that directive, the beginning of the period for the exercise of the right of withdrawal and the passing of risk is set by providing that a product sold at distance is considered to be ‘delivered’ when ‘the consumer or a third party other than the carrier and indicated by the consumer acquires physical possession of the goods’. (78)

84. From a purposive point of view, the authorisation scheme which the Member States must set up in accordance with Article 9 of Directive 97/67 is intended to enable them to ‘to guarantee compliance with the essential requirements’ defined in Article 2(19). I agree with the referring court and the Italian Government that the attainment of that objective may also be required of an operator which acts as a storage facility for postal items, until such time as those items are actually collected by the addressee.

85. Accordingly, the locker management activity carried out by AIS forms part of the ‘distribution’ stage of a postal item, within the meaning of Article 2(5) of Directive 97/67.

D. Case C‑537/25

86. The referring court asks whether AIT can be classified as a ‘postal service provider’ in accordance with Article 2(1a) of Directive 97/67, even though it does not substantively carry out any of the activities to which point 1 of that provision refers. (79)

87. AIT argues that it deals with the ‘mere organisation’ of the activity, which is performed by third parties – local operators – and which does not constitute a ‘postal service’. (80) Therefore, it is not a postal service provider because it simply organises the activities of third parties (local operators).

88. On the other hand, according to AGCOM and the referring court, ‘the person that actually organises the service … while entrusting the carrying out of substantive activities to third parties that are only formally autonomous, must also be regarded as the provider of the postal service’. (81)

89. The wording of the definition of ‘postal service provider’ (Article 2(1a) of Directive 97/67) is not helpful for the purpose of resolving the debate in view of its tautologous wording.

90. Nor is Article 2(4) of Regulation 2018/644, pursuant to which a ‘parcel delivery service provider’ (parcel delivery services are ‘postal services’) (82) may entrust the performance of phases of the postal cycle to a ‘subcontractor’ without losing its status as a result, conclusive for those purposes.

91. The ‘substantive approach’ taken by AGCOM focuses on the actual controller of the postal service and draws attention to the ‘purely formal’ nature of the autonomy of the local operators contracted. Even though they are independent undertakings and are not part of the Amazon group, those local operators are subject to AIT’s powers of management and control as regards the conditions for provision of their service.

92. In that connection, the referring court and AGCOM point out that:

– Amazon plans in detail the specific tasks to be carried out by each courier in the delivery stage. According to AGCOM, that planning is given concrete expression in instructions which are issued directly to the delivery driver, who is an employee of the local undertaking, and which relate individually to each parcel which the delivery driver collects from the delivery station for delivery. (83)

– Amazon monitors the performance of those tasks on an ongoing basis (using vehicle tracking systems and devices provided to staff).

– On the basis of the information thus acquired, AIT monitors ex post the performance of local operators using indicators which it has established, and any performance failings result in financial penalties for the local undertaking. (84)

– The specific contractual conditions that bind the local operators in relation to AIT are such that the management of the human and material resources necessary to carry out the delivery service falls under Amazon’s responsibility. (85)

– As for human resources (employees of the local operators), AIT can establish their contractual conditions (86) and require the removal of employees from local couriers whom it deems unsatisfactory. (87)

93. In the context of a request for a preliminary ruling, the Court must proceed on the basis of the facts as set out for it by the referring court. (88) The latter alone has jurisdiction to assess whether AGCOM’s findings of fact are an accurate reflection of the contractual relationships between AIT and the local operators, and the powers of management which the former exercises over the latter. (89)

94. Thus, in the light of the factual context set out by the referring court, I agree with its view that AIT’s contractual relationships with local operators ‘fall outside the ordinary relations which, by nature, exist between providers of postal services and the persons turning to them in order to benefit from those services.’

95. If it is confirmed that AIT exercises control over the substantive conditions for performance of the service by a local operator, including conditions relating to the management of the latter’s staff, as AGCOM argues, AIT’s assertion (it claims that ‘it does not substantively provide the delivery service’ and is involved only in the ‘mere organisation’ of that service) is far from persuasive.

96. In reality, AIT appears to deal, substantively and not merely conceptually, with much of the ‘distribution’ phase, which is defined as a ‘process’ which begins with ‘sorting at the distribution centre’ (the delivery stations). In that connection, the local operator only deals substantively with carriage to the final addressee in accordance with AIT’s detailed instructions and it cannot be ruled out that the real ‘postal service’ is provided by AIT, using the resources of the local undertaking, whose level of independence is almost totally removed when the delivery of items is managed by Amazon. (90)

97. In order to respond to Amazon’s argument regarding the fact that it does not have its own fleet of vehicles and does not have contractual relationships with the delivery drivers, the referring court cites the judgment in Uber France. (91) Amazon questions the relevance of that judgment to this dispute, arguing that that case differed substantially from the case at issue here. (92)

98. In particular, Amazon states that the ‘decisive influence’ criterion was neither the sole nor the decisive criterion for the purposes of the approach taken in the judgment in Uber France. On the contrary, the Court pointed out that the transport service provided by the independent drivers would not have existed without the intermediation service provided by Uber, a condition which does not arise in the present case. (93)

99. Although Amazon’s observation is partly correct, it must be borne in mind that:

– In the judgment in Uber France, the Court’s focus on the requirement of the ‘integral creation of the offer’ is explained in the light of the question referred at that time. In that case, it was necessary to determine whether, where a composite service is in issue, the component that is provided by electronic means (intermediation service by means of a smartphone app) was the ‘principal service’ within the composite service. Only in the event of an affirmative answer would it have been possible for the composite service to fall within the scope of ‘information society services’ for the purposes of EU law. (94)

– However, in accordance with the judgment in Confetra, in the postal sector, where a ‘postal service’ is provided ‘on an ancillary basis’ in relation to another service provided by the same provider, that does not affect the applicability of Directive 97/67. (95)

– Thus, for the purposes of the present case, only the second criterion laid down in the judgment in Uber France, relating to ‘decisive influence’, which enables the provision of the service to be attributed, specifically, to the person who establishes the substantive conditions with which the performance of that service must comply, is relevant.

100. In view of the decisive influence that AIT exercises in relation to the establishment of the conditions applied to local operators, it may be required to obtain an ‘authorisation’ to guarantee fulfilment of the ‘essential requirements’ to which Article 2(19) of Directive 97/67 refers, that is, general non-economic reasons which can induce a Member State to impose conditions on the supply of postal services.

101. It is not sufficient, for that purpose, for the local undertakings which collaborate with AIT to hold an authorisation now (96) to operate as postal operators (which, in Amazon’s submission, would mean that fulfilment of the essential requirements is already sufficiently guaranteed). (97) The issue here is to ascertain whether AIT itself must hold that authorisation.

102. I believe, therefore, that Article 2(1a) of Directive 97/67 must be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘postal service provider’ includes an undertaking, like AIT, which, while it does not substantively perform the ‘postal service’, exercises a decisive influence over the conditions for the provision of that service by a local operator subcontracted by AIT.

E. Relevance of the connection between the activities of AIL, AIT and AIS

103. The referring court asks the Court to examine ‘whether, and to what extent, … the connection between the activities carried out by [AIL, AIT and AIS] may be of relevance for the purposes of responding to the request for interpretation submitted to it’. (98)

104. In 2022, the Commission carried out a study in which it dealt with the appearance of emerging business models in the postal sector. It concluded that traditional postal operators are facing competition from a multitude of new players and that the traditional postal cycle has become fragmented. (99)

105. That ‘fragmentation’ is apparent on two levels: (a) The postal cycle is no longer under the control of a single operator but rather multiple operators, each of which specialises in a particular stage of the process; and (b) those operators tend to be legally autonomous entities which are often integrated into complex, interdependent corporate structures, as in the present case.

106. Some national postal sector regulatory authorities have attempted to ‘lift the corporate veil’, taking the view that activities of a postal nature could not be excluded from the scope of Directive 97/67 merely because of the segmentation of the legal personality of the service provider, which meant that ‘the postal activity of the group “was lost within that whole network”’. (100)

107. By the same token, the Italian Government, argues, in the alternative,(101) that regard should be had, by analogy, to the ‘economic unit’ theory used in the case-law of the Court to penalise a parent company for the anti-competitive conduct of its subsidiaries. (102)

108. That approach seeks to preserve the effectiveness of Directive 97/67, by preventing the distortions created where, through corporate fragmentation, there is an attempt to evade the application of the scheme laid down in that directive. (103) However, I believe that it is unnecessary to have recourse to the economic unit theory (its use may, depending on the circumstances, even be counterproductive) (104) if the analysis of each group company’s activity itself reveals that the company concerned provides postal services.

109. The definition of ‘postal service provider’ laid down by Directive 97/67 forms the basis for a fragmented provision, by a number of operators, of the services which comprise the successive stages of the postal processing cycle; by the same token, it enables each of those operators to be classified as a ‘postal service provider’ falling within the scope of Directive 97/67.

110. As I observed above, referring to the analysis carried out by the ERPG, the main issues in cases like these are derived from the insufficient nature of the current definition of ‘postal item’. Regarding what the law ought to be, the reformulation of that definition would enable further clarification of the scope of Directive 97/67. (105)

111. However, under the law as it stands, it is sufficient to interpret the concept of ‘postal service provider’ in terms which enable a number of operators in the same postal cycle to be classified as such, including those which merely organise the activities of their subcontractors, that are subject to their powers of management and control. The reference to ‘one or more postal services’ in Article 2(1a) of Directive 97/67 supports the use of that classification.

VI. Conclusion

112. In the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court of Justice reply as follows to the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State, Italy):

‘Articles 2 and 9 of Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service, as amended by Directive 2008/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008,

must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude Member States from making subject to the general authorisation scheme the activities of an economic operator consisting of:

(1) the allocation to different service providers, depending on delivery times and areas served, of delivery to the final client of postal items containing goods purchased on a digital marketplace, which have been pre-packaged and pre-labelled by the operator which allocates delivery;

(2) the management of delivery lockers, which includes the active monitoring of the deposit of postal items by local delivery operators and their subsequent collection by addressees;

(3) the organisation of a distribution service for postal items, carried out by local operators which are legally autonomous but which perform that service in accordance with detailed instructions from the principal which, effectively, has powers of management and control over them.’

1 Original language: Spanish.

2 That was the point I made in my Opinion in Confetra and Others (C‑259/16 and C‑260/16, EU:C:2017:910, point 39).

3 I use the name ‘Amazon’ to designate the group which owns an online platform intended to put sellers and consumers in touch with one another with a view to performing transactions relating to the sale of goods. The disputes in the main proceedings are not linked to the direct sale by Amazon of goods of which it has ownership.

4 These are Amazon Italia Logistica Srl, Amazon Italia Services Srl and Amazon Italia Transport Srl; from now on, I shall refer to them respectively as ‘AIL’, ‘AIS’ and ‘AIT’ or, more succinctly, as ‘Amazon’.

5 Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service (OJ 1998 L 15, p. 14), as amended by Directive 2008/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 (OJ 2008 L 52, p. 3).

6 Legislative Decree No 261 transposing Directive 97/67/EC on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service of 22 July 1999 (GURI No 182 of 5 August 1999, p. 4).

7 Decision No 129/15/CONS approving the Regulation governing authorisations for the provision of postal services to the public. In its written observations (paragraphs 12 to 15), Amazon states that, in 2024, AGCOM adopted a new version of that regulation (Decision No 388/24/CONS), which, it submits, confirms a number of its arguments. However, that new regulation is not applicable ratione temporis to the proceedings.

8 Delibera n.º 400/18/CONS – Ordinanza ingiunzione a società del grupo Amazon per l’esercizio di attività postale senza titolo abilitante (Decision No 400/18/CONS giving formal notice to the Amazon group companies for carrying out postal activities without an authorisation; ‘the AGCOM decision’).

9 The AGCOM decision, paragraph 16.

10 Paragraph 73 of the Italian Government’s written observations.

11 In paragraph 3 of Amazon’s written observations, these are defined as ‘small warehouses situated close to the main cities from where goods are delivered to final customers using local transport operators … who collaborate with AIT’.

12 From now on, I shall refer to these as ‘local operators’ or ‘local undertakings’. They are all undertakings outside the Amazon group.

13 AIT does not substantively provide the delivery service but it manages the network of local operators, organising the delivery service in accordance with its own needs. AIT unilaterally establishes the technical and financial conditions of the service by means of strict instructions, which concern: (a) management of staff, including sub-contracted staff, responsible for making deliveries on Amazon’s behalf; (b) organisation of routes; (c) supervision of the achievement of performance indicators; (d) tariffs; (e) provision of equipment/instruments to staff; (f) use of vehicle tracking systems; (g) security-related aspects; (h) management of returns; (i) collection of items and/or returns to the delivery station (order for reference in Case C‑537/25, paragraph 4, fourth indent).

14 Order for reference in Case C‑536/25, paragraphs 4, 25 and 34 to 36. According to paragraph 4, the lockers are connected via the internet to AIS’s IT systems, which make it possible to confirm both delivery by the courier and collection of the parcel by the final addressee. In that sense, ‘the lockers are controlled remotely’. Once the item has arrived at the selected locker, the user receives a notification by email containing instructions and a code for collection. From the time when the goods are deposited in the locker until the addressee collects them, the items are under the protection of Amazon which acts as a storage provider. Actual delivery takes place at the moment when the user collects the item from the locker, which is when Amazon ceases to be responsible for it.

15 Order for reference in Case C‑535/25, paragraph 22.

16 That is my reading of paragraphs 44 and 46 of the Italian Government’s written observations in connection with the activities of AIL and AIS. However, I do not understand the criticism made in relation to AIT’s activity (paragraph 45).

17 The Italian Government’s written observations, paragraph 50.

18 Order for reference in Case C‑535/25, paragraph 70; order for reference in Case C‑536/25, paragraph 44; order for reference in Case C‑537/25, paragraph 58.

19 In addition to those questions, there is the question related to the possible self-provision of the service. All the parties and interveners (apart from the Netherlands Government) argue that Amazon’s service is not self-provided.

20 The activities of ‘sorting’ and ‘distribution’, attributed respectively to AIL and AIS, are identical, whether the subsequent or earlier phases of the service are entrusted to AIT or other undertakings are involved. As regards AIT’s activity, the question is limited to the activity which local operators perform on behalf of Amazon and not for their own customers.

21 Judgment of 31 May 2018, Confetra and Others (C‑259/16 and C‑260/16, EU:C:2018:370); ‘the judgment in Confetra’.

22 That is the case of third-party logistics or ‘3PL’. In that model, an undertaking externally contracts to a specialist operator all or part of the management of its logistics chain, including activities such as storage, the preparation of orders, transport and distribution. Generally, a 3PL operator acts as a provider of integrated services without assuming control of the goods managed, and optimises the management of physical and operational flows of goods between sellers and final addressees.

23 See the report of the European Regulators Group for Postal Services of 2 July 2025 (available at https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/circabc-ewpp/d/d/workspace/SpacesStore/f1d8ad07-415d-429f-9673-0cb8e41dc806/download; ‘the ERGP report’). Section 4.1 of the report states that, in the context of fast-paced technological advancements, some of the definitions in Directive 97/67 have become ‘outdated, ambiguous or impractical’.

24 The definition of ‘postal item’ in Article 2(6) of Directive 97/67 uses as a central element the concept of ‘postal service provider’, that is, ‘undertaking that provides one or more postal services’. In turn, a key element of the definition of ‘postal services’ is the concept of ‘postal item’. Section 4.1 of the ERGP report states that the definition of ‘postal item’ must be more clearly delimited.

25 As I shall explain below, Directive 2008/6 merely inserted the definition of ‘postal service provider’ and stated, in recital 7 that, ‘European postal markets have undergone dramatic change in recent years, a development that has been driven by technological advancements and increased competition resulting from deregulation …’ Recital 14 adds that ‘… In order to meet competition, cope with new consumer requirements … postal service providers may diversify their activities by providing electronic business services or other information society services.’

26 Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on market surveillance and compliance of products and amending Directive 2004/42/EC and Regulations (EC) No 765/2008 and (EU) No 305/2011 (OJ 2019 L 169, p. 1).

27 Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 April 2018 on cross-border parcel delivery services (OJ 2018 L 112, p. 19).

28 Recital 13 of Regulation 2018/644.

29 Judgment of 18 December 2025, AGCOM (C‑345/24, EU:C:2025:1009), operative part, point 1.

30 In Case C‑345/24, AIT and AIL did not dispute that categorisation and the resulting application ratione personae of Regulation 2018/644. According to paragraph 13 of Amazon’s written observations in these proceedings, those companies (or at least AIL) held the national authorisation required by Directive 97/67 for a certain period of time and only surrendered it following the amendment of the AGCOM regulation referred to in footnote 7.

31 Order for reference in Case C‑535/25, paragraph 23.

32 The judgment in Confetra, paragraph 34.

33 The judgment in Confetra, paragraph 34. ‘Transport alone’ of postal items is excluded from the scope of Directive 97/67: see recital 17 of Directive 2008/6.

34 Order for reference in Case C‑535/25, paragraph 35.

35 Order for reference in Case C‑535/25, paragraph 7.

36 Order for reference in Case C‑535/25, paragraph 7.

37 Amazon’s written observations, paragraph 22.

38 Amazon’s written observations, sections IV(ii), IV(i) and IV(iii) to (iv), respectively.

39 Amazon’s written observations, paragraph 31. The original Italian version of that paragraph of the observations refers to the ‘momento cronologico in cui l’invio viene “preso in consegna” dall’operatore postale per la consegna’.

40 Amazon’s written observations, paragraph 38.

41 In the Italian version, an ‘invio postale’ is ‘l’invio, nella forma definitiva al momento in cui viene preso in consegna dal fornitore di servizi postali’ (emphasis added).

42 In the Spanish-language version, an ‘envío postal’ is ‘el envío con destinatario presentado en la forma definitiva en que deba ser transportado por el proveedor del servicio postal’. In the French-language version, it is defined as ‘un envoi portant une adresse sous la forme définitive dans laquelle il doit être acheminé par le prestataire de services postaux’; in the English-language, as ‘an item addressed in the final form in which it is to be carried by a postal service provider’ (emphasis added). Other versions, like the Portuguese-language (‘o envio endereçado na forma definitiva sob a qual fica a cargo do prestador do serviço postal’), the German-language (‘eine adressierte Sendung in der endgültigen Form, in der sie von einem Postdiensteanbieter übernommen wird’) and the Dutch-language (‘geadresseerde zending in de definitieve vorm die een aanbieder van postdiensten verzorgt’), do not refer to ‘carriage’ or ‘delivery’ and use verbs (ficar a cargo, übernehmen, verzorgen) closer to the notion of the assumption of responsibility than to that of substantive transport.

43 That is apparent, in particular, from the language versions which use the words ‘encargarse de’ [to deal with]: from a semantic point of view, there is nothing to prevent AIL from ‘dealing’ itself with the clearance and sorting of ‘postal items’ and being the ‘postal service provider’ referred to in Article 2(6) of Directive 97/67. That, in essence, is AGCOM’s position.

44 Amazon’s written observations, paragraph 25. A similar argument is advanced in the Netherlands Government’s written observations: in the absence of ‘clearance’, AIL’s activity should be classified as the ‘self-provision’ of postal services which is outside the scope of Directive 97/67. The Netherlands Government, while acknowledging that Article 2(1a) of Directive 97/67 allows the different stages of the postal processing cycle to be entrusted to different operators, submits that a ‘service’ may be classified as ‘postal’ only if a ‘postal item’ has been through all the stages provided for in Article 2(1) of the directive. However, that interpretation conflicts with the findings of the judgment in Confetra and undermines fulfilment of the objectives of Directive 97/67.

45 Emphasis added.

46 Defined by Article 2(3) of Directive 97/67 as ‘physical facilities, including letter boxes provided for the public either on the public highway or at the premises of the universal service provider, where postal items may be deposited with the public postal network by customers’ (1997 version). The 2008 amendment replaced the terms ‘universal service provider’ with ‘postal service provider(s)’, ‘customers’ with ‘senders’ and ‘public postal network’ with ‘postal network’.

47 The current version of Article 2(4) of Directive 97/67 defines ‘clearance’ as ‘the operation of collecting postal items by a postal service provider’.

48 The Italian Government reaches the same conclusion in paragraph 69 of its written observations.

49 Some versions of Regulation 2019/1020, such as the Italian- and Spanish-language versions, use the more general term ‘logistics’ (‘servizi di logistica’; ‘servicios de logística’). Others, such as the English- and French-language versions, refer to order fulfilment (‘fulfilment’; ‘exécution des commandes’), which is a process of outbound logistics.

50 Article 1(1): the objective is ‘to improve the functioning of the internal market by strengthening the market surveillance of products covered by the Union harmonisation legislation’.

51 Recital 13: in order ‘to avoid a gap in the enforcement system, it is appropriate to include fulfilment service providers within the list of economic operators against whom it is possible for market surveillance authorities to take enforcement measures’.

52 Amazon’s written observations, paragraph 40.

53 Order for reference in Case C‑535/25, paragraph 40.

54 See the considerably clearer wording of that exception in the document 2017/0353(COD), available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CONSIL:ST_5841_2019_INIT: ‘… Services provided according to Article 1(1) of Directive 97/67/EC … are not considered fulfilment services’.

55 Recital 12 and Article 3(1) of Regulation 2019/1020.

56 Article 3(13) of Regulation 2019/1020 includes ‘fulfilment service providers’ under the category of ‘economic operator’ who, in accordance with Article 4(1) of that regulation, must perform the tasks listed in Article 4(3) as a prior condition for introducing a product into the European Union market. Those tasks include verifying that the products made available on the market have an EU declaration of conformity or declaration of performance and technical documentation required by the applicable legislation in force, and keeping those documents at the disposal of market surveillance authorities. They must also cooperate proactively and continuously with those authorities. The responsibility of a ‘fulfilment service provider’ arises only where there is no manufacturer, importer or representative established in the European Union (Article 4(2)(d)).

57 Directive 97/67 covers the regulation and liberalisation of the postal services market, whereas Regulation 2019/1020 is aimed at ensuring fulfilment of the requirement of the legislation on compliance of goods made available on the internal market.

58 See also recitals 15 and 16 of the regulation.

59 That is, to the meaning and scope of that term ‘considering its usual meaning in everyday language, while also taking into account the context in which it occurs and the purposes of the rules of which it is part’. The order for reference in Case C‑535/25, paragraph 34, and the Spanish Government’s written observations, paragraph 37, refer, in that connection, to the judgment of 15 November 2018, Maniero (C‑457/17, EU:C:2018:912, paragraph 30).

60 As regards the alleged lack of ‘clearance’ by AIL, I refer to the considerations set out above.

61 Paragraphs 52 to 54 of the Commission’s written observations.

62 Order for reference in Case C‑535/25, paragraph 41. However, as the Commission and the Spanish Government point out (in paragraphs 27 and 50, respectively, of their written observations), neither the definitions in Article 2 nor Article 9 of Directive 97/67 (provisions to which the question refers) stipulate that postal services must be provided ‘to the public’. The sole reference in that sense is in recital 24 and Article 10(1) of Directive 97/67, which are outside the scope of this case.

63 Order for reference in Case C‑535/25, paragraph 10. The Italian Government (paragraph 19 of its written observations) rightly states that it is debatable whether or not AIL’s postal services (as services ancillary to its logistical activities) are provided to an undifferentiated public.

64 Pursuant to recital 12 of Directive 97/67, ‘the aim of the universal services is to offer all users easy access to the postal network through the provision, in particular, of a sufficient number of access points and by ensuring satisfactory conditions with regard to the frequency of collections and deliveries [and guaranteeing all users] fair and non-discriminatory treatment’ (emphasis added).

65 Recital 12 and Article 3 of Directive 97/67.

66 The Italian Government’s written observations, paragraph 96.

67 Order for reference in Case C‑536/25, paragraph 37.

68 Paragraphs 90 to 96 and 58 to 60 of their respective written observations.

69 Paragraph 75 of the Commission’s written observations.

70 Article 2(5) of Directive 97/67 defines ‘distribution’ as ‘the process from sorting at the distribution centre to delivery of postal items to their addressees’.

71 Paragraph 3 of Amazon’s written observations.

72 Paragraphs 81 to 85 of Amazon’s written observations.

73 Paragraphs 83 and 84 of Amazon’s written observations.

74 As for the argument that the ‘postal nature’ of the service provided by AIS is excluded because that service is not targeted at an undifferentiated public, I refer to the earlier points of this Opinion.

75 Order for reference in Case C‑536/25, paragraph 35.

76 That follows from the page on the website Amazon.it dealing with lockers: https://www.amazon.it/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=GRQMENKQV9RQ6BWF.

77 Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 304, p. 64). See, inter alia, Article 18(1) and recital 51 thereof. Although they pursue different objectives, Directive 2011/83 and Directive 97/67 have a number of points of contact, for example in relation to the refund of delivery and postal charges, which suggests a need to maintain some consistency of interpretation between them.

78 Articles 9(2)(b) and 20, respectively, of Directive 2011/83. Recitals 37 and 51 confirm that the deposit in a locker cannot serve as delivery for those purposes and that the manager of the locker cannot be treated as the ‘third party’ to whom that definition refers.

79 It should be recalled that, in accordance with that provision, a ‘postal service provider’ is an undertaking that provides one or more postal services.

80 Order for reference in Case C‑537/25, paragraph 13.

81 Order for reference in Case C‑537/25, paragraph 41.

82 Article 2(1) of Regulation 2018/644 confirms, as I have already noted, that a ‘parcel’ is a ‘postal item’. Article 2(4) of that regulation classifies as a ‘subcontractor’ ‘an undertaking that provides the clearance, sorting, transport or distribution of parcels for the parcel delivery service provider’.

83 Paragraphs 134, 162, 163 and 171 of the AGCOM decision. Inter alia, in the delivery stations, the driver collects, in addition to the parcels a device fitted with an Amazon app. The user guide for that device reads: ‘once you have started a session, you will find the suggested delivery route for the whole day with all the stops and deliveries that you must make’. AGCOM states that, although the route is ‘suggested’ (which would indicate that it is not required), the delivery driver must indicate, also on the device: (i) the exact place of departure; (ii) the number of kilometres travelled, at the start and end of the route, by the vehicle used for delivery; (iii) a scan of all items at the time of collection.

84 It is apparent from paragraph 166 of the AGCOM decision that if a local undertaking fails to comply with just one of the indicators referred to at any distribution point for a second consecutive time, it will be required to send Amazon a recovery plan guaranteeing immediate compliance with the minimum service level. In the event that that minimum service level is not achieved within four weeks of the breach, Amazon will retain 10% of the total amount of the invoices submitted.

85 Order for reference in Case C‑537/25, paragraph 38.

86 The AGCOM decision, paragraph 156. In particular, Amazon sets the minimum salary and other suitability conditions (minimum age, professional experience, number of points on driving licence).

87 Order for reference in Case C‑537/25, paragraph 39. According to the AGCOM decision, AIT may exercise that power ‘at any time’, ‘entirely at its discretion’ and ‘without needing to give any reason or explanation’.

88 ‘The Court must in principle confine its examination to the matters which the court or tribunal making the reference has decided to submit to it and thus proceed on the basis of the situation which that court or tribunal considers to be established …’ (judgment of 2 April 2020, Coty Germany, C‑567/18, EU:C:2020:267, paragraph 22 and the case-law cited).

89 In Cases C‑535/25 and C‑536/25, the referring court states that Amazon does not refute the description of the facts set out in the AGCOM decision but rather only their legal classification. However, in Case C‑537/25, the factual basis for the reference appears more contentious and the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State) reserves the right to conduct ‘any further assessments of fact … following the outcome of the reference for a preliminary ruling’ (paragraph 36 of the order for reference in Case C‑537/25).

90 That finding is not precluded by the fact that the local operator freely determines the conditions for provision of the service in contracts concluded with other customers.

91 Judgment of 10 April 2018 (C‑320/16, EU:C:2018:221, paragraph 21); ‘the judgment in Uber France’. In that judgment, the Court accepted that an intermediary could ‘provide’ a service (in that case, a transport service) while using resources and staff which were not its own where that intermediary exercised ‘decisive influence over the conditions under which services were provided’ using those resources.

92 Paragraphs 65 to 68 of Amazon’s written observations.

93 The situation of local operators is different, since they have their own customers and provide express courier (postal) services, irrespective of the intermediation service provided by Amazon.

94 That was the explanation given by Advocate General Szpunar in his Opinion in Uber France (C‑320/16, EU:C:2017:511, points 15 and 16).

95 The judgment in Confetra, paragraphs 34 and 35. I do not agree with Amazon’s argument (paragraph 63 of its written observations) to the effect that that judgment excludes the need for a case-by-case scrutiny of the degree of influence exercised by one company over the postal activities carried out by another. That scrutiny is essential because of the business strategy adopted by Amazon, whereby it segments its activities between different companies in the group and subcontracts to third-party undertakings in order to provide some of its services.

96 Amazon explains that when AGCOM adopted its decision (of 25 July 2018), the judgment in Confetra had not yet been given. It agrees that, at that time, the local operators did not hold an authorisation, since Amazon took the view that express couriers were excluded from the scope of Directive 97/67 (paragraph 17 of its written observations) because they carried out a ‘transport-only’ activity. However, after that judgment, all local operators obtained the authorisation required by the postal legislation. I note in that regard that the main proceedings concern the legality of an administrative decision imposing a penalty which was adopted by AGCOM in the light of the factual context existing on 25 July 2018.

97 Where the local operator is a small undertaking whose revenue depends largely on the contracts with AIT, it could be induced to accept service conditions which breach the provisions in force. Therefore, I do not find persuasive the argument that it is common sense that the local operator would have no interest in accepting conditions which jeopardise its own authorisation. In any event, fulfilment of the essential requirements is achieved more effectively through the supervision of AIT by AGCOM.

98 According to the referring court, that question has arisen in the context of an expansion of e-commerce and the emergence of new types of undertaking which provide integrated services in a complex framework of companies. See the order for reference in Case C‑537/25, paragraph 25.

99 European Commission, Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, Copenhagen Economics, Main developments in the postal sector (2017-2021). Volume 1, Main report, European Union Publications Office, 2022, available at https://op.europa.eu/es/publication-detail/-/publication/e8348d3f-79d0-11ed-9887-01aa75ed71a1/language-en. It refers, inter alia, to the entrance of new players at different levels of the postal cycle, new business models specifically focusing on last mile delivery (p. 194) and vertical integration from retailers into the provision of logistics and delivery services (p. 202, which specifically mentions Amazon).

100 That was what the Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y de la Competencia (National Commission on Markets and Competition, Spain; ‘CNMC’) did in its Decision No STP/DTSP/006/20 of 24 September 2020, to which Amazon has referred. That decision was challenged before the Chamber for Contentious Administrative Proceedings of the Audiencia Nacional (National High Court, Spain), which, by judgment No 4355/2023 of 14 July 2023, annulled the decision on the grounds that the CNMC ‘was expressing a desire to exercise control rather than a legally sustainable state of affairs’ (paragraph 10). An appeal was lodged against judgment No 4355/2023 before the Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court, Spain).

101 The Italian Government’s written observations, paragraphs 100 to 102. The Italian Government accepts, in any event, that that approach does not appear to be necessary in this case.

102 On the origins of that theory and its different applications, I refer to the comprehensive analysis carried out by Advocate General Pitruzzella in his Opinion in Sumal (C‑882/19, EU:C:2021:293).

103 The distorting effect is well documented and examined in the ERGP report, sections 4.1 and 4.2, and in the study cited in footnote 99.

104 Monitoring by national regulatory authorities may be impeded in so far as the activity is attributed to a parent company which does not come within the territorial jurisdiction of those authorities (AIL, AIS and AIT are subsidiaries of a parent company established in Luxembourg).

105 ERGP report, section 4.1.

Opinion of Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona delivered on 9 July 2026.###

Full text

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude