Hmm.
That -- picking up packages and delivering them themselves -- might solve things for Tesla, but I'm not at all sure that this is a general solution for other entities that might be in a similar position in the future.
It's practical for Tesla to pick up and deliver them themselves. But it might not be for some other company or person.
Let's say that, for some reason, a package delivery company wants to leverage its monopoly position. I can imagine a number of reasons. For example, a particular recipient or sender might be willing and able to pay more than they actually are. By using price discrimination and its monopoly position, a delivery company could convert consumer surplus into producer surplus: charge parties more who really badly need to send or receive packages and can afford to do so.
So there is at least incentive to do this: get one end to sign an exclusivity agreement, then extract concessions from other parties. If EU antitrust law permits for this, I would think that a logistics company could pull the same stunt, but going after smaller companies.
I think that in the US, common carrier status applies to at least some logistics companies, which disallows them from doing this.
https://www.freightwaves.com/news/what-does-the-common-carrier-obligation-mean-for-us-railroads
According to the definition for common carrier obligation, “a rail carrier providing transportation or service subject to the jurisdiction of the [Surface Transportation Board] under this part shall provide the transportation or service on reasonable request.”
In other words, the common carrier obligation binds railroads to transport any freight that has been properly tendered on reasonable terms and conditions, according to the Association of American Railroads.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier
A common carrier...is distinguished from a contract carrier, which is a carrier that transports goods for only a certain number of clients and that can refuse to transport goods for anyone else, and from a private carrier. A common carrier holds itself out to provide service to the general public without discrimination (to meet the needs of the regulator's quasi-judicial role of impartiality toward the public's interest) for the "public convenience and necessity."
Public airlines, railroads, bus lines, taxicab companies, phone companies, internet service providers,[5] cruise ships, motor carriers (i.e., canal operating companies, trucking companies), and other freight companies generally operate as common carriers.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/202
(a) Charges, services, etc.
It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.
WP says that the closest analog to the common carrier in common-law countries like the US and the UK is the public carrier in civil law countries like most of Europe. But I can't find material indicating whether it's normal for a public carrier to also have an obligation not to discriminate, as a common carrier does.
I do assume that PostNord is indeed a public carrier, as they appear to offer services to the general public.
Anyway, to reiterate, my point is: suppose instead of Tesla, it were a much smaller company being targeted that couldn't deliver the packages itself. It seems like those companies would still be vulnerable if public carriers are permitted to do this sort of thing, discriminate by party with whom they are doing business. The solution that Tesla went with and the court upheld -- that Tesla had the right to do delivery itself -- solved the problem for Tesla, because Tesla was large enough that that is an option...but it seems like it'd leave the problem for many other companies and individuals, and I'm not sure that that's desirable.
If one wanted to avoid that, I'd think that requiring PostNord not to discriminate among packages by sender/recipient would be a preferable solution, rather than simply establishing that Tesla has the right to do delivery itself.
And that seems like it'd be an EU law question, a matter for EU competition law, rather than a question of Swedish law, as competition is an exclusive EU competency.