M/240 - Postal services & equipment

This European Standard specifies complaints handling principles related to domestic and international postal services. It applies to both national and cross border services. The standard also gives guidance for compensation and redress procedures.
This European Standard may be applied to all types of postal service both Universal service and non-universal service and by all types of postal organizations. It defines various types of complaints and establishes a methodology for handling complaints in order to improve the service given to postal users. It also gives guidance for complaints handling processes to be set up by postal service providers in order to improve quality of service.
This European Standard provides guidelines beyond the requirements given in ISO 10002 and ISO 9001 in order to consider both the effectiveness and efficiency of a complaint handling process, and consequently the potential for improvement of the performance of an organization. When compared to ISO 9001, the objectives of customer satisfaction and product quality are extended to include the satisfaction of interested parties and the performance of the organization.
This European Standard is applicable to the processes of the organization and consequently the quality management principles on which it is based can be deployed throughout the organization.
It should be noted that the number of complaints received might not be related to the level of service given. A large number of complaints may on the contrary reflect the effectiveness of the postal operator's complaint handling process.

This European Standard specifies complaints handling principles related to domestic and international postal services. It applies to both national and cross border services. The standard also gives guidance for compensation and redress procedures.
This European Standard may be applied to all types of postal service both Universal service and non-universal service and by all types of postal organizations. It defines various types of complaints and establishes a methodology for handling complaints in order to improve the service given to postal users. It also gives guidance for complaints handling processes to be set up by postal service providers in order to improve quality of service.
This European Standard provides guidelines beyond the requirements given in ISO 10002 and ISO 9001 in order to consider both the effectiveness and efficiency of a complaint handling process, and consequently the potential for improvement of the performance of an organization. When compared to ISO 9001, the objectives of customer satisfaction and product quality are extended to include the satisfaction of interested parties and the performance of the organization.
This European Standard is applicable to the processes of the organization and consequently the quality management principles on which it is based can be deployed throughout the organization.
It should be noted that the number of complaints received might not be related to the level of service given. A large number of complaints may on the contrary reflect the effectiveness of the postal operator's complaint handling process.

This European Standard specifies a recommended procedure for the development of specifications for applications of digital postage marks (DPMs) – i.e. applications linked to the use of digital printing and image data capture technologies in the postal industry, most particularly for the evidencing of postage accounting and/or payment. It is not intended to prescribe or to recommend any particular architecture or design for such applications, only to specify the process through which such an architecture or design should be developed.
The document covers only requirements and considerations relating to applications that use digital postage marks, on individual postal items, as a means of communicating data (messages). The clause on design covers only the design of the digital postage marks themselves. It does not cover other aspects of design, including the possible use of other messages, transported by other means (e.g. statements of mailing), to provide for the communication of additional data, even though these might be just as important.

This Technical Specification defines a mechanism for the unique identification of individual receptacles. It specifies the method of construction of the identifier, referred to as the receptacle asset number, and defines one required and a number of optional methods by which this identifier can be associated with (affixed to) the receptacle itself.
The receptacle asset number is defined in accordance with the specification of ISO/IEC 15418 data identifier number 5B, which defines a Receptacle Asset Number or container identifier constructed in accordance with the hierarchical principles defined in ISO/IEC 15459.
The specification also identifies a number of receptacle attributes, or characteristics, which it may be useful to communicate between parties making use of the receptacle concerned.
A coded representation of one of these attributes - equipment qualifier - is integrated into the structure of the receptacle asset number. The others are not defined in detail in this document. Precise definitions and encoding formats for them will be developed over time, as a result of practical experience of use of the specification. The definitions will be included in an appropriate reference specification, such as UPU standards S25 [17] and M82 [10], which serve as baseline definition documents for attributes used in postal industry communications about postal items, mail aggregates and receptacles.
The application of this specification is voluntary in the sense that receptacles are not required to be individually identified.
NOTE 1   Not all receptacles need to have a receptacle identifier. In particular, in today's environment, mailbags and disposable trays are not normally identified explicitly - rather their contents are. Many posts are, however, starting to individually identify more valuable receptacles and this practice is expected to spread, including to trays, as the advantages of being able to individually track and control receptacle movement become more appa

This Technical Specification defines a mechanism for the unique identification of individual receptacles. It specifies the method of construction of the identifier, referred to as the receptacle asset number, and defines one required and a number of optional methods by which this identifier can be associated with (affixed to) the receptacle itself.
The receptacle asset number is defined in accordance with the specification of ISO/IEC 15418 data identifier number 5B, which defines a Receptacle Asset Number or container identifier constructed in accordance with the hierarchical principles defined in ISO/IEC 15459.
The specification also identifies a number of receptacle attributes, or characteristics, which it may be useful to communicate between parties making use of the receptacle concerned.
A coded representation of one of these attributes - equipment qualifier - is integrated into the structure of the receptacle asset number. The others are not defined in detail in this document. Precise definitions and encoding formats for them will be developed over time, as a result of practical experience of use of the specification. The definitions will be included in an appropriate reference specification, such as UPU standards S25 [17] and M82 [10], which serve as baseline definition documents for attributes used in postal industry communications about postal items, mail aggregates and receptacles.
The application of this specification is voluntary in the sense that receptacles are not required to be individually identified.
NOTE 1   Not all receptacles need to have a receptacle identifier. In particular, in today's environment, mailbags and disposable trays are not normally identified explicitly - rather their contents are. Many posts are, however, starting to individually identify more valuable receptacles and this practice is expected to spread, including to trays, as the advantages of being able to individually track and control receptacle movement become more appa

The purpose of this Technical Specification is to define a facing identification mark (FIM), with procedures for its use, which can be used by any postal operator. It is primarily addressed to those postal operators that have not yet implemented the use of FIMs for automated facing and has been designed to minimise conflict with FIM marks that are already in use. Nevertheless, operators with existing FIMs are encouraged to consider support for migration onto this Technical Specification as and when they upgrade or replace facing equipment.
Use of the standard FIM offers the possibility for automated preparation of letters which do not carry a stamp and which arrive, in a postal facility, without being faced. These items can them be included in the domestic and international mechanised streams of mail.
This Technical Specification allows facer-cancellers and culler-facer-cancellers (or other automated equipment supporting the mail preparation function), to detect bar code-type marks enabling those machines to face and cancel items carrying the FIM. Through the incorporation of a coded value, called the FIM-code, this Technical Specification also supports segregation of FIM-marked items into up to 18 separate streams. This capability can be used to facilitate revenue control by allowing items to be segregated according the type of revenue control procedure required. For example, Business Reply items could be separated and allow accounting and cancellation to take place before, rather than after, the items are transported to their delivery office. This would simplify controls designed to prevent the sending of business reply items to addresses in other countries. However, it should be recognized that FIMs have no in-built security and an item may carry an inappropriate FIM code, resulting in it being placed in the wrong processing stream. Hence, in particular, the FIM alone cannot be relied upon as providing evidence of payment.

TC agrees to modify ENV into new deliverable CEN/TS (CC/020114)

This document specifies methods for measuring the level of loss and substantial delay, using a survey of test letters, of domestic and cross-border priority and first class single piece letter mail, collected, processed and distributed by postal service operators.
It is impossible in practice to distinguish between items which will never arrive and items which have been delayed for a very long time. A minimum period is therefore defined after which an item that has been sent shall be treated as if it has been lost or substantially delayed for the purposes of measurement.
The resulting overall figure for loss and substantial delay is to be expressed as a percentage of the total posted priority and first class single piece mail. This indicator does not measure the postal operator's overall performance in a way which provides direct comparison of postal service operators, and does not include other service performance indicators other than those related to loss and substantial delay.
According to this document, loss and substantial delay is estimated within specified accuracy limits. When the level of loss is very small it may only be possible to estimate an upper limit for the level of loss.
This document has been developed from and is compatible with the requirements of EN 13850 for the measurement of the transit time of end-to-end services for single piece priority mail and first class mail, so that the same survey may be used to measure loss and substantial delay and on-time performance. Thus it comprises a set of requirements for the design of a measuring system involving the selection and distribution of test letters sent and received by selected panellists, according to a specification that ensures that the test letter sample design is representative of the real mail flows.

This document specifies methods for measuring the level of loss and substantial delay, using a survey of test letters, of domestic and cross-border priority and first class single piece letter mail, collected, processed and distributed by postal service operators.
It is impossible in practice to distinguish between items which will never arrive and items which have been delayed for a very long time. A minimum period is therefore defined after which an item that has been sent shall be treated as if it has been lost or substantially delayed for the purposes of measurement.
The resulting overall figure for loss and substantial delay is to be expressed as a percentage of the total posted priority and first class single piece mail. This indicator does not measure the postal operator's overall performance in a way which provides direct comparison of postal service operators, and does not include other service performance indicators other than those related to loss and substantial delay.
According to this document, loss and substantial delay is estimated within specified accuracy limits. When the level of loss is very small it may only be possible to estimate an upper limit for the level of loss.
This document has been developed from and is compatible with the requirements of EN 13850 for the measurement of the transit time of end-to-end services for single piece priority mail and first class mail, so that the same survey may be used to measure loss and substantial delay and on-time performance. Thus it comprises a set of requirements for the design of a measuring system involving the selection and distribution of test letters sent and received by selected panellists, according to a specification that ensures that the test letter sample design is representative of the real mail flows.

This document provides guidelines for printing addresses on mail items. These guidelines apply to addresses printed on mail items whose size is up to and including C5. It may also be applied to oversize items, commonly referred to as C5+. The address blocks covered are the addressee address block and the sender address block if they are both on the same side of the item. Otherwise, only the addressee address block is covered. Guidelines related to address lines are relevant for all lines in an address block.

This Technical Specification defines a set of physical marks called Address Block Locators (ABLs). ABLs are marks, printed in the vicinity of addresses on postal items, that are intended to facilitate automatic recognition of address location and processing of the addresses on mail sorting and video-coding equipment.
The Technical Specification describes two families of ABLs which may be printed on all types of postal items, including letters, flats and parcels.
In the first family, address block locators take the form of pictograms which bear no other information than being a landmark for the address block. One such pictogram is defined herein for use in association with the delivery address block. It may be printed at the same time as the address or pre-printed on an envelope, an insert, or a label, with the address being printed, on the same physical support, at a later stage.
The second family covers address block locators which contain an encoded specification of the address block type and location and which can also be used for encoding other data, not directly related to address block location. Such data may include addressee or postal item identifiers, routing data, non-delivery instructions, a return address and references or other data which are relevant for either the mailer or the addressee. It may also include address checking data which may be used to verify correct interpretation of the printed address by the OCR system. In this family, three types of ABL are defined: one based on a pattern of alphanumeric characters; one on a linear bar code and one based on two-dimensional symbologies. These locators can be applied to the delivery address block and to forwarding or return address blocks. They will normally be printed within the same process as the address itself.
The Technical Specification is intended to be used by:
-   mailers, during the production of mail;
(....)

The purpose of this Technical Specification is to define a facing identification mark (FIM), with procedures for its use, which can be used by any postal operator. It is primarily addressed to those postal operators that have not yet implemented the use of FIMs for automated facing and has been designed to minimise conflict with FIM marks that are already in use. Nevertheless, operators with existing FIMs are encouraged to consider support for migration onto this Technical Specification as and when they upgrade or replace facing equipment.
Use of the standard FIM offers the possibility for automated preparation of letters which do not carry a stamp and which arrive, in a postal facility, without being faced. These items can them be included in the domestic and international mechanised streams of mail.
This Technical Specification allows facer-cancellers and culler-facer-cancellers (or other automated equipment supporting the mail preparation function), to detect bar code-type marks enabling those machines to face and cancel items carrying the FIM. Through the incorporation of a coded value, called the FIM-code, this Technical Specification also supports segregation of FIM-marked items into up to 18 separate streams. This capability can be used to facilitate revenue control by allowing items to be segregated according the type of revenue control procedure required. For example, Business Reply items could be separated and allow accounting and cancellation to take place before, rather than after, the items are transported to their delivery office. This would simplify controls designed to prevent the sending of business reply items to addresses in other countries. However, it should be recognized that FIMs have no in-built security and an item may carry an inappropriate FIM code, resulting in it being placed in the wrong processing stream. Hence, in particular, the FIM alone cannot be relied upon as providing evidence of payment.

This document provides guidelines for printing addresses on mail items. These guidelines apply to addresses printed on mail items whose size is up to and including C5. It may also be applied to oversize items, commonly referred to as C5+. The address blocks covered are the addressee address block and the sender address block if they are both on the same side of the item. Otherwise, only the addressee address block is covered. Guidelines related to address lines are relevant for all lines in an address block.

This Technical Specification complements CEN/TS 14631:2004 and UPU standards M34a and S37, which cover the definition of mail aggregates; their relationships with other entities; their identification and attributes and the electronic exchange of aggregate attribute and composition data.
NOTE 1   CEN/TS 14631:2004 is equivalent to UPU standard S37-4; there is no CEN equivalent of UPU standard M34a.
NOTE 2   Though the specification repeats some information from these standards for reasons of readability, a full understanding requires familiarity with the above referenced specifications.
The specification primarily addresses issues not covered in M34a:
-   the association of aggregate identifiers with the physical aggregates to which they relate;
-   aggregate creation;
-   the processing of aggregates as a unit;
-   aggregate tracking;
-   aggregate break-up;
-   how the above relates to the tracking of individual mail items;
-   the implementation of aggregate information exchange and tracking systems through the evolution of existing electronic data exchange systems.
The specification is principally concerned with methods and procedures for the communication of process control and tracking information about mail aggregates. It should not be interpreted as specifying or limiting the applications for which such information may be used.
The specification is especially concerned with cross-border mail that is exchanged between postal handling organisations. However, the concepts described are equally applicable to the exchange of mail between different postal handling organisations in the same country and may beneficially be applied to the internal operations of individual mail service contractors and postal handling organisations.
NOTE 3   Individual postal handling organisations could define proprietary approaches for internal use. However, this would almost certainly lead to increased development and maintenance costs for both the organisations themselves and their custome

This European Standard specifies complaints handling principles related to domestic and international postal services. It applies to both national and cross border services.  Attention is given on how to handle complaints in multiple operator situations. The standard also gives guidance for compensation and redress procedures.
This European Standard may be applied to all types of postal service both Universal service and non-universal service and by all types of postal organizations. It defines various types of complaints and establishes a methodology for handling complaints in order to improve the service given to postal users. It also gives guidance for complaints handling processes to be set up by postal service providers in order to improve quality of service.
This European Standard provides guidelines beyond the requirements given in ISO 10002 and ISO 9001 in order to consider both the effectiveness and efficiency of a complaint handling process, and consequently the potential for improvement of the performance of an organization. When compared to ISO 9001, the objectives of customer satisfaction and product quality are extended to include the satisfaction of interested parties and the performance of the organization.
This European Standard is applicable to the processes of the organization and consequently the quality management principles on which it is based can be deployed throughout the organization. The focus of this European Standard is the achievement of ongoing improvement, measured through the satisfaction of customers and other interested parties.
It should be noted that the number of complaints received might not be related to the level of service given. A large number of complaints may on the contrary reflect the effectiveness of the postal operator's complaint handling process.
This European Standard consists of guidance and recommendations and is neither intended for certification, regulatory or contractual use, nor as a guide to the imple

This European Standard specifies complaints handling principles related to domestic and international postal services. It applies to both national and cross border services.  Attention is given to how to handle complaints in multiple operator situations. The standard also gives guidance for compensation and redress procedures.
This European Standard may be applied to all types of postal service both Universal service and non-universal service and by all types of postal organizations. It defines various types of complaints and establishes a methodology for handling complaints in order to improve the service given to postal users. It also gives guidance for complaints handling processes to be set up by postal service providers in order to improve quality of service.
This European Standard provides guidelines beyond the requirements given in ISO 10002 and ISO 9001 in order to consider both the effectiveness and efficiency of a complaint handling process, and consequently the potential for improvement of the performance of an organization. When compared to ISO 9001, the objectives of customer satisfaction and product quality are extended to include the satisfaction of interested parties and the performance of the organization.
This European Standard is applicable to the processes of the organization and consequently the quality management principles on which it is based can be deployed throughout the organization. The focus of this European Standard is the achievement of ongoing improvement, measured through the satisfaction of customers and other interested parties.
It should be noted that the number of complaints received might not be related to the level of service given. A large number of complaints may on the contrary reflect the effectiveness of the postal operator's complaint handling process.
This European Standard consists of guidance and recommendations and is neither intended for certification, regulatory or contractual use, nor as a guide to the imple

This UPU standard provides a dictionary of the possible ) components of postal addresses, together with examples of and constraints on their use.
The standard defines three hierarchical levels of postal address component:
-   segments, such as addressee specification, which correspond to major logical portions of a postal address.
-   constructs, such as organisation identification, which group elements within segments into units which are meaningful for human interpretation;
-   elements, such as organisation name or legal status, which correspond to the lowest level of constructs, i.e., those which are not themselves made up of subordinate elements, though they may be sub-divided for technical purposes
To cover multiple occurrences and locations of elements in an address, and to be able where necessary to work with sub-divisions of element content, the standard defines a fourth level:
-   element sub-types, such as door type or door indicator, representing parts of conceptual elements, such as door, for database storage or to facilitate presentation, or representing multiple instances of conceptual elements for use in defining address element structures or templates
NOTE   The underlying point is that elements are conceptual whereas sub-types are defined to meet technical needs such as template construction, rendition requirements, accurate representation of address instances, and matching to postal database fields
The standard further provides a methodology for the specification of postal address templates, which stipulate how a postal address is to be written, including the order in which postal address elements are to appear, required and optional elements, and the presentation or rendition of the elements, subject to constraints on the space available for that task. Languages suitable for human comprehension and computer processing of postal address templates are defined and described.
(...°

This European Standard provides a dictionary of the possible ) components of postal addresses, together with examples of and constraints on their use.
This European Standard defines three hierarchical levels of postal address component:
- segments, such as addressee specification, which correspond to major logical portions of a postal address;
- constructs, such as organisation identification, which group elements within segments into units which are meaningful for human interpretation;
- elements, such as organisation name or legal status, which correspond to the lowest level of constructs, i.e. those which are not themselves made up of subordinate elements, though they may be sub-divided for technical purposes.
To cover multiple occurrences and locations of elements in an address, and to be able where necessary to work with sub-divisions of element content, the standard defines a fourth level:
- element sub-types, such as door type or door indicator, representing parts of conceptual elements, such as door, for database storage or to facilitate presentation, or representing multiple instances of conceptual elements for use in defining address element structures or templates.
NOTE   The underlying point is that elements are conceptual whereas sub-types are defined to meet technical needs such as template construction, rendition requirements, accurate representation of address instances, and matching to postal database fields.
This European Standard further provides a methodology for the specification of postal address templates, which stipulate how a postal address is to be written, including the order in which postal address elements are to appear, required and optional elements, and the presentation or rendition of the elements, subject to constraints on the space available for that task. Languages suitable for human comprehension and computer processing of postal address templates are defined and described.
It also defines a number of useful terms, such as delivery address, forwarding address, mailee and mail originator. By providing a standard dictionary of postal address components, this European Standard is expected to greatly facilitate the formal description of actual address representations and the definition of procedures for mapping between them.
In practice, many address representations, whether in computer databases, in electronic messages or in printed or written form, combine several of the postal address components defined herein into single fields or lines. ) Considerable intelligence may be required in mapping between different representations, particularly where these are subject to a degree of ambiguity. )
This European Standard does not specify the length or value range of components.
This European Standard does not cover the topic of data protection. Users of this European Standard are nevertheless reminded that the storage and exchange of personal data are subject to legislation in many countries. This European Standard may be applied only to the extent that this is compliant with such legislation.

This document specifies a recommended procedure for the development of specifications for applications of digital postage marks (DPMs)- i.e. applications linked to the use of digital printing and image data capture technologies in the postal industry, most particularly for the evidencing of postage accounting and/or payment. It is not intended to prescribe or to recommend any particular architecture or design for such applications, only to specify the process through which such an architecture or design should be developed.
NOTE 1   For this reason, the standard includes both normative and informative content. Clauses 1 to 5 and Annex A are normative, whilst the remaining annexes are informative. Non-normative (informative) clauses are indicated as such in the heading.
The process described is based on a cyclic model, involving business planning; systems analysis; security analysis and detailed DPM design.
The defined process is a recommended one only and DPM applications designers are not obligated to follow it. However, its use is intended to ensure both that all relevant aspects are taken into account in the design process and that the resulting specifications have a degree of commonality of structure which make them comparable with similar specifications produced by other parties. It is hoped that this will make them more easily intelligible, and less open to ambiguity, for implementers.
It is assumed that users of the standard are familiar with normal processes involved in the design of computer-based applications and the standard therefore limits itself to aspects which are specific to DPM applications design. In particular, the document covers only requirements and considerations relating to applications that use digital postage marks, on individual postal items, as a means of communicating data (messages). The clause on design covers only the design of the digital postage marks themselves. It does not cover other aspects of design, including the possible u

This document specifies a recommended procedure for the development of specifications for applications of digital postage marks (DPMs)- i.e. applications linked to the use of digital printing and image data capture technologies in the postal industry, most particularly for the evidencing of postage accounting and/or payment. It is not intended to prescribe or to recommend any particular architecture or design for such applications, only to specify the process through which such an architecture or design should be developed.
NOTE 1   For this reason, the standard includes both normative and informative content. Clauses 1 to 5 and Annex A are normative, whilst the remaining annexes are informative. Non-normative (informative) clauses are indicated as such in the heading.
The process described is based on a cyclic model, involving business planning; systems analysis; security analysis and detailed DPM design.
The defined process is a recommended one only and DPM applications designers are not obligated to follow it. However, its use is intended to ensure both that all relevant aspects are taken into account in the design process and that the resulting specifications have a degree of commonality of structure which make them comparable with similar specifications produced by other parties. It is hoped that this will make them more easily intelligible, and less open to ambiguity, for implementers.
It is assumed that users of the standard are familiar with normal processes involved in the design of computer-based applications and the standard therefore limits itself to aspects which are specific to DPM applications design. In particular, the document covers only requirements and considerations relating to applications that use digital postage marks, on individual postal items, as a means of communicating data (messages). The clause on design covers only the design of the digital postage marks themselves. It does not cover other aspects of design, including the possible u

This European Standard specifies methods for measuring the level of loss and substantial delay of domestic and cross-border registered letter mail, collected, processed and delivered by postal service providers. The resulting overall figure for loss and substantial delay is expressed as a percentage of the total posted registered mail collected or received by the postal service providers.
This European Standard is applicable only to those service providers which have a measurement system in place which
- records each item as it is posted,
- records each item as it is delivered,
- can, by comparing these records, count the number of items which have been posted and not delivered.
This European Standard can be used if appropriate to measure the level of loss of other types of postal items for which such a measurement system is in operation.
This European Standard specifies requirements for the design and operation of the measurement system and for other procedures to allow the level of loss to be calculated.
This European Standard does not specify technical requirements for the design and operation of a registered letter service, except for purposes of measurement. It does not deal with the technical requirements of a track and trace system.
This European Standard includes specifications for the quality control of the measurement system and for the reporting of loss of mail.

This European Standard specifies methods for measuring the level of loss and substantial delay of domestic and cross-border registered letter mail, collected, processed and delivered by postal service providers. The resulting overall figure for loss and substantial delay is expressed as a percentage of the total posted registered mail collected or received by the postal service providers.
This European Standard is applicable only to those service providers which have a measurement system in place which
- records each item as it is posted,
- records each item as it is delivered,
- can, by comparing these records, count the number of items which have been posted and not delivered.
This European Standard can be used if appropriate to measure the level of loss of other types of postal items for which such a measurement system is in operation.
This European Standard specifies requirements for the design and operation of the measurement system and for other procedures to allow the level of loss to be calculated.
This European Standard does not specify technical requirements for the design and operation of a registered letter service, except for purposes of measurement. It does not deal with the technical requirements of a track and trace system.
This European Standard includes specifications for the quality control of the measurement system and for the reporting of loss of mail.

This European Standard specifies the requirements and the test methods of the apertures for the delivery of letter post items when fitted in accordance with the manufacturers instructions.
It takes into account security, impregnability, safety and performance for the recipient, and ergonomics and efficiency for delivery personnel. It allows the daily delivery in good condition of a great majority of letter post items.

This European Standard specifies the requirements and the test methods of the apertures for the delivery of letter post items when fitted in accordance with the manufacturers instructions.
It takes into account security, impregnability, safety and performance for the recipient, and ergonomics and efficiency for delivery personnel. It allows the daily delivery in good condition of a great majority of letter post items.

The standard defines the physical characteristics of a disposable container for  letters and flats for exchange within Europe, to use a uniform postal container and to facilitate the exchange of letters within Europe. The dimensions of this "1 level" of container will constitute a first step of standardization. The following features will be defined: - inner dimension compatible with formats; - compatibility between trays and pallets dimensions; - rigidity; - impermeability; - closing; - sealing (optional); - positioning; - label's dimension; - number of cycle of use; - volume of folded containers.

The standard will define the components of the address and their formats and guidelines on how to indicate the address on a letter post item. The standard will also define data elements for postal addresses, specify data fields and define rules for the representation of address information in files and on envelopes including number of lines and characters per line.

The standard will define the components of the address and their formats and guidelines on how to indicate the address on a letter post item. The standard will also define data elements for postal addresses, specify data fields and define rules for the representation of address information in files and on envelopes including number of lines and characters per line.

The standard defines the physical characteristics of a disposable container for  letters and flats for exchange within Europe, to use a uniform postal container and to facilitate the exchange of letters within Europe. The dimensions of this "1 level" of container will constitute a first step of standardization. The following features will be defined: - inner dimension compatible with formats; - compatibility between trays and pallets dimensions; - rigidity; - impermeability; - closing; - sealing (optional); - positioning; - label's dimension; - number of cycle of use; - volume of folded containers.

This European Prestandard defines terms used on forms and in relations between postal operators and their customers.

The standard will define a methodology for the evaluation of complaints and redress procedures. The standard will apply to various types of complaints and for each of them establish a methodology for measuring response rates for their acknowledgement, processing and resolution by the postal operator.

The standard will define a methodology for the evaluation of complaints and redress procedures. The standard will apply to various types of complaints and for each of them establish a methodology for measuring response rates for their acknowledgement, processing and resolution by the postal operator.

This European Prestandard defines terms used on forms and in relations between postal operators and their customers.

This European Standard specifies methods for measuring the end-to-end transit time of the domestic and cross-border, priority and non-priority, bulk mail, collected, processed and distributed by postal service operators. It considers methods using a representative end-to-end sample of addressed bulk mail. End-to-end is defined as from the point mail is placed into the collection/acceptance system under the responsibility of the postal operators, to the final delivery point under the responsibility of the postal operators.
For the purpose of this European Standard, bulk mail can include all types of addressed bulk mail; letter mail, direct mail, magazines, and newspapers, unless otherwise indicated.
The overall quality-of-service result should be expressed as percentage of mail delivered within J + n days end-to-end according to the EC postal directive or the percentage of mail delivered by, on or between expected dates. The measurement should be in whole days and not be restricted by reference to a specific time of day for delivery.
This quality of service indicator does not measure the postal operator's overall performance in a way, which provides direct comparison of postal service operators, and does not include other service performance indicators than those related to transit time. In particular this European Standard does not measure whether the timing of collections meet customers' requirements.
The European Standard can be used to assess the performance of postal operators for specific products or services at a national level or for an individual or a group of customers.
The European Standard should not be used to assess the overall performance of a group of products or services which have other service specifications in terms of transit time expectation.

This European Standard specifies methods for measuring the end-to-end transit time of the domestic and cross-border priority single piece letter mail, collected, processed and distributed by postal service operators. It considers methods using a representative end-to-end sample of all types of single piece addressed letter mail. End-to-end is defined as from the point mail is placed into the collection/acceptance system under the responsibility of the postal operators, to the final delivery point under the responsibility of the postal operators.
The overall transit time quality-of-service result is to be expressed as percentage of mail delivered within
J + n days end-to-end according to the EC postal directive.  
This quality of service indicator does not measure the postal operator's overall performance in a way that provides direct comparison of postal service operators, and does not include other service performance indicators than those related to transit time. In particular this European Standard does not measure whether the timing of the last collection of the day meets customer's requirements.  
It specifies a set of requirements for the design of a quality of service measuring system for single piece priority mail, involving the selection and distribution of test item sent and received by selected panellists. The sample design gives the specifications for the item to be representative of the real mail flows.
This European Standard relates to the measurement of the so-called "normal" services given to private persons / households and businesses that post mail at street letter boxes, over the counter at post offices, have pick ups at their offices or give their mail directly at postal service operators sorting centres.
For technical reasons this European Standard may not in all parts be suitable for the measuring of very small volumes of mail and for operators with limited coverage.

This European Standard specifies methods for measuring the end-to-end transit time of the domestic and cross-border, priority and non-priority, bulk mail, collected, processed and distributed by postal service operators. It considers methods using a representative end-to-end sample of addressed bulk mail. End-to-end is defined as from the point mail is placed into the collection/acceptance system under the responsibility of the postal operators, to the final delivery point under the responsibility of the postal operators.
For the purpose of this European Standard, bulk mail can include all types of addressed bulk mail; letter mail, direct mail, magazines, and newspapers, unless otherwise indicated.
The overall quality-of-service result should be expressed as percentage of mail delivered within J + n days end-to-end according to the EC postal directive or the percentage of mail delivered by, on or between expected dates. The measurement should be in whole days and not be restricted by reference to a specific time of day for delivery.
This quality of service indicator does not measure the postal operator's overall performance in a way, which provides direct comparison of postal service operators, and does not include other service performance indicators than those related to transit time. In particular this European Standard does not measure whether the timing of collections meet customers' requirements.
The European Standard can be used to assess the performance of postal operators for specific products or services at a national level or for an individual or a group of customers.
The European Standard should not be used to assess the overall performance of a group of products or services which have other service specifications in terms of transit time expectation.

This European Standard specifies methods for measuring the end-to-end transit time of the domestic and cross-border priority single piece letter mail, collected, processed and distributed by postal service operators. It considers methods using a representative end-to-end sample of all types of single piece addressed letter mail. End-to-end is defined as from the point mail is placed into the collection/acceptance system under the responsibility of the postal operators, to the final delivery point under the responsibility of the postal operators.
The overall transit time quality-of-service result is to be expressed as percentage of mail delivered within
J + n days end-to-end according to the EC postal directive.  
This quality of service indicator does not measure the postal operator's overall performance in a way that provides direct comparison of postal service operators, and does not include other service performance indicators than those related to transit time. In particular this European Standard does not measure whether the timing of the last collection of the day meets customer's requirements.  
It specifies a set of requirements for the design of a quality of service measuring system for single piece priority mail, involving the selection and distribution of test item sent and received by selected panellists. The sample design gives the specifications for the item to be representative of the real mail flows.
This European Standard relates to the measurement of the so-called "normal" services given to private persons / households and businesses that post mail at street letter boxes, over the counter at post offices, have pick ups at their offices or give their mail directly at postal service operators sorting centres.
For technical reasons this European Standard may not in all parts be suitable for the measuring of very small volumes of mail and for operators with limited coverage.

This Technical Specification complements CEN/TS 14631:2004 and UPU standards M34a and S37, which cover the definition of mail aggregates; their relationships with other entities; their identification and attributes and the electronic exchange of aggregate attribute and composition data.
NOTE 1   CEN/TS 14631:2004 is equivalent to UPU standard S37-4; there is no CEN equivalent of UPU standard M34a.
NOTE 2   Though the specification repeats some information from these standards for reasons of readability, a full understanding requires familiarity with the above referenced specifications.
The specification primarily addresses issues not covered in M34a:
-   the association of aggregate identifiers with the physical aggregates to which they relate;
-   aggregate creation;
-   the processing of aggregates as a unit;
-   aggregate tracking;
-   aggregate break-up;
-   how the above relates to the tracking of individual mail items;
-   the implementation of aggregate information exchange and tracking systems through the evolution of existing electronic data exchange systems.
The specification is principally concerned with methods and procedures for the communication of process control and tracking information about mail aggregates. It should not be interpreted as specifying or limiting the applications for which such information may be used.
The specification is especially concerned with cross-border mail that is exchanged between postal handling organisations. However, the concepts described are equally applicable to the exchange of mail between different postal handling organisations in the same country and may beneficially be applied to the internal operations of individual mail service contractors and postal handling organisations.
NOTE 3   Individual postal handling organisations could define proprietary approaches for internal use. However, this would almost certainly lead to increased development and maintenance costs for both the organisations themselves and their custome