shaky-carrousel
a month ago
PostNord AB is a private company and has been for some years, so the idea that this is a government service being withdrawn is untrue.
Danish law requires everyone to have access to postal services for letters. Therefore another private company, DAO, will provide postal delivery to everyone in Denmark and the ability for everyone in Denmark to send letters from DAO service points (in shops, etc).
A significant subsidy is being provided to DAO to enable a universal delivery service.
DAO will be the national postal service for international treaty (UPU) purposes, enabling letter and small parcel post between Denmark and other countries according to UPU agreements.
cinntaile
a month ago
It's legally structured as a private company, but it's really not. It's 60% owned by the Swedish state and 40% by the Danish state.
shaky-carrousel
a month ago
Right. Then the accurate description is that it's a state-owned commercial company, not a government agency.
Ownership by states doesn't make it a public service. It makes it a company whose shareholders happen to be governments. It still operates under corporate law, not administrative law, and it was explicitly removed from being a state service.
Calling that "not really private" is just rhetorical framing, not a legal or operational distinction.
cinntaile
a month ago
It's not privately owned so it's not really a private company even if it has to abide by the same laws. I don't get why you accuse me of rhetorical framing, it's what the ownership situation looks like.
shaky-carrousel
a month ago
Fair enough; we're using different definitions of "private."
I'm using it in the legal/operational sense relevant to whether a government service was withdrawn (agency vs company, public law vs company law). By that definition, it's a private company.
You're using it in a shareholder-ownership sense. That's a valid perspective, but it's a different question than the one being discussed here.