# EUR-Lex - 52013DC0025 - EN

*|*

# 52013DC0025

**COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS on "THE FOURTH RAILWAY PACKAGE – COMPLETING THE SINGLE EUROPEAN RAILWAY AREA TO FOSTER EUROPEAN COMPETITIVENESS AND GROWTH" /* COM/2013/025 final */**

			*

			*

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

on
"THE FOURTH RAILWAY PACKAGE – COMPLETING THE SINGLE EUROPEAN RAILWAY AREA
TO FOSTER EUROPEAN COMPETITIVENESS AND GROWTH"

(Text with EEA relevance)

1.           INTRODUCTION

The 2011
Transport White Paper[1]
unveiled a vision for establishing a Single European Railway Area (SERA) and set
out the Commission's approach to ensuring the competitiveness of EU transport
in the long term, while dealing with expected growth, fuel security and
decarbonisation. An important aspect of the policy is to enhance the role of
rail, given the difficulty of reducing oil dependence in other sectors. But
this can only be achieved if rail provides efficient and attractive services,
and if we eliminate regulatory and market failures, barriers to entry and
burdensome administrative procedures which hamper efficiency and
competitiveness.

The European
rail industry generates turnover of €73bn[2]
and has 800000 employees[3].
Each year public authorities invest considerable sums in the rail sector. In
2009 this amounted to €20bn in government payments for public service
obligations (PSOs) and €26bn in public investment for infrastructure[4].

In most EU
Member States (MS), public payments have increased substantially, while the
growth in passenger-kilometres has been more moderate. Overall
passenger-kilometres increased by 4.3% between 2005 and 2010[5]. Substantial public sector
investment, particularly in the newer EU Member States where subsidy payments
more than doubled in six years, has not in itself secured equivalent increases
in rail demand. This is partly due to an inability to curb operational
inefficiencies caused by a lack of appropriate competitive incentives. Yet in some
MS, public funding is awarded directly without competitive tender. Efficiency
gains are desperately needed to create sustainable growth and for the benefit
of the public purse.

Although there
have been positive developments in some markets the modal share of rail freight
has decreased from 11.5% to 10.2% since 2000[6].
Over the same period passenger rail in intra-EU transport has remained fairly
constant at around 6%. The development of domestic rail market segments has
been uneven among MS, ranging from a decline of more than 10% in Hungary to a
greater than 20% increase in Sweden from 2005 to 2010[7]. This is despite the
introduction of circa 6000 track km of high-speed line over the period[8]. High-speed networks have gained
market share over air transport, becoming the preferred passenger choice over
certain routes and allowing rail to compete more efficiently on numerous routes.
Over the period 2020 – 2035 high-speed rail is expected to have the highest
growth in demand of any transport mode[9],
providing significant growth, investment and employment opportunities, which
this package aims to develop further.

The latest
Eurobarometer[10]
survey suggests that only 6% of Europeans use the train at least once a week[11]. Among consumers[12] rail services are ranked 27th
out of 30 services markets, with particularly poor scores on comparability and
satisfaction. The market records the second highest number of problems with a
wide divergence existing across the EU. Consumers do not believe that problems
can be satisfactorily solved. Since the mid-1990's, in parts of the EU (relatively
newer MS in particular) underinvestment has created a vicious cycle of decline,
with the decay of infrastructure and rolling stock rendering rail unattractive,
especially given the wealth-driven high growth of car ownership. Cars have a large
share of urban transport and 59% of Europeans never use suburban trains. Against
this background and the fact that the EU27 has a 75% urbanisation rate, there
is a huge market development potential for suburban and regional passenger rail
transport, especially given the rising congestion on roads.[13]

2.           WHERE DO WE STAND

With the goal
of establishing an internal market for rail and thus a more efficient and
customer-responsive industry, early EU legislation laid down the basic
principles guiding the improvement of rail efficiency via progressive market
opening, establishment of independent Railway Undertakings and Infrastructure Managers
and separation of accounts between them. Since 2000, these principles have been
progressively translated into reality, not least through the adoption of three
successive packages of EU legislation. However the modal share of rail has
remained modest, partly due to suitability issues (for example rail is not
practical for many short distance urban journeys such as trips to the supermarket)
but also because of obstacles to market entry hampering competition and
innovation.

In 2012, parts
of this legislation were simplified, consolidated and further reinforced by Directive
2012/34/EU establishing SERA [14],
bolstering existing provisions on competition, regulatory oversight and
financial architecture of the rail sector. This strengthens the power of
national regulators, improves the framework for investment in rail, and ensures
fairer access to rail infrastructure and rail-related services. It entered into
force on 15 December 2012 with transposition required by mid-2015.

In parallel to
market opening, other EU measures have improved the interoperability and safety
of national networks. A more European approach to rail is intended to
facilitate cross-border movements to enable rail to exploit its competitive
advantage over longer distances and to provide a single market for rail
equipment suppliers with lower costs. For example, the Shift2Rail[15] initiative would contribute to
developing rail as a transport mode by promoting step-change innovations for
passenger rolling stock, freight transport, traffic management systems and rail
infrastructure.

Large sums have been invested in rail
infrastructure. The new TEN-T policy[16]
aims to achieve a highly efficient European transport network with
strong core rail arteries. The Commission has proposed a new infrastructure
financing instrument for the next multi-annual financial framework supporting
these priorities: the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF)[17]. The new EU infrastructure
policy provides the necessary regulatory framework and financing to complete
the rail core network as the backbone to the internal market. Infrastructure
investment is vital, but not alone sufficient to realise rail's potential. This
also requires structural changes to boost operational efficiency and service
quality through more robust and transparent governance and market opening.

At the
European Council on 28-29 June 2012, the Heads of State or Government adopted
the 'Compact for Growth and Jobs[18],
which seeks to deepen the single market by removing barriers in order to promote
growth and jobs in network industries. The Commission consequently identified
the Fourth Railway Package as a key initiative to generate growth in the EU
when adopting its Single Market Act II in October 2012[19].

This package has
been prepared to tackle the remaining barriers to SERA.

3.           WHERE ARE WE GOING

3.1 Infrastructure
governance

Although some
parts of the world (notably North America) have competing rail infrastructures,
most of the EU's network was designed at country level to be a single network.
Further, efficient use of infrastructure relies on its intensive use. So
infrastructure in the EU is and is likely to remain a natural monopoly.
Existing EU legislation therefore requires a degree of separation between IMs,
which run the network, and RUs which run the train services on it, with the aim
of ensuring fair and equal treatment of all RUs. Full independence of charging
and capacity allocation is required, as these were seen as key to ensuring
equal access.

Nevertheless
as natural monopolies, IMs do not always react to the needs of the market and evidence
from users' suggests that the current governance does not provide sufficient
incentives for them to respond to users' needs. In particular in the case of
IMs in holding structures there is strong criticism from new market players
that IMs have sometimes increased track and station access charges for
passenger services considerably compared to rates asked of incumbents.

Information
asymmetries lead to competitive advantages for incumbents and there is a
persistent risk of cross-subsidisation due to the lack of complete financial
transparency. An illustration of such an advantage can be found in a PSC for
rail in Saxony-Anhalt which was awarded to Deutsche Bahn (DB) on the basis of a
commitment by DB's subsidiary DB Regio to compensate any rise in track access
charging for 15 years[20].
These additional costs of access charges for the RU would then be compensated,
at the level of the holding, by the increased revenues stemming from these same
charges collected by the IM. Such compensation is available only to integrated
railway structures.

Existing
separation requirements do not prevent conflicts of interest, and functions not
currently defined as essential (such as investment planning, financing and
maintenance) have resulted in discrimination against some new entrants. The
Italian Competition Authority for example sanctioned Ferrovie dello Stato (FS)
and imposed a fine amounting to €300000 after finding that FS, put in place through
its subsidiaries a 'complex and unified strategy' to keep Arenaways, (a
competitor that was bankrupt by the time of the decision) out of the profitable
route between Milan and Turin between 2008 and 2011[21]. In the same manner, the
French Competition Authority recently sanctioned SNCF imposing a fine of €60.9
million for various anti-competitive practices after opening of the French rail
freight market in 2006. As delegated infrastructure manager, SNCF collected
confidential information on the requests of train paths submitted by its
competitors and used it in the commercial interest of its freight subsidiary,
SNCF Fret.[22]

Under the
current system, there are no incentives for European and intermodal
cooperation. A core EU rail system maximising positive network effects is
required. While the Commission's existing TEN-T policy and new proposal for CEF
together with the existing rules on Rail Freight Corridors[23] (RFCs) are aimed at increasing
rail's capacity, efficiency and attractiveness for customers, potential gains
from these measures can only be fully achieved if the obstacles to the
efficient operation of IMs are eliminated and they acquire a truly European
dimension.

Moreover, existing
separation requirements ensuring the independence of IMs have proven difficult
to transpose and enforce. Several infringement proceedings are now pending
before the Court of Justice of the European Union. As current legal frameworks are
insufficient to remove risks of conflicts of interest and possible distortion
of competition, there is a need for further legislative intervention.

On the other
hand, there are criticisms[24]
that existing arrangements can result in inefficient operations and inappropriate
long term investment decisions. The Commission does not consider that these
studies show that separation is necessarily inefficient. They do however
imply that to achieve efficiency, IMs must be responsible for all the core
tasks of running the infrastructure, from long term investment planning,
through timetabling and real-time train management to maintenance. Equally, appropriate
cooperation must be facilitated between the IM and all RUs using a
particular route so that proper governance structures ensure alignment of
interests of an increasing number of players in an open market

Several
incumbent rail operators presented studies to prove that integrated rail
companies can achieve significant growth in the market, but this must be
balanced against strong concerns that rail companies with dominant positions
protected by integrated structures in their "home" market could
obtain financial benefits giving them an unfair competitive advantage when
competing elsewhere in the EU or even domestically against new market entrants.
Maintaining national markets as systems dominated by integrated incumbents will
also hinder the development of long distance pan European services.

The Commission
is proposing to amend the Directive establishing SERA to ensure that IM can
perform all functions needed to run the infrastructure in an optimised,
efficient and non-discriminatory manner. Since this is the simplest and most
efficient solution to create a level playing field among transport operators,
the Commission proposes an institutional separation of infrastructure
management and transport operation. However, where Member States wish to maintain
existing holding structures with infrastructure manager's ownership, it
proposes to introduce strict safeguards to protect the independence of the
infrastructure manager with a process of verification by the Commission to
ensure that a genuine level playing field for all railway undertakings is put
in place.

It will create
common rules for a governance structure of IMs that treat all RUs on an equal
footing and guarantee proper involvement of public authorities and users of
infrastructure in the preparation of decisions having an impact on them. IMs will
need to establish a coordination body with RUs, customers and public
authorities making them central players in investment planning and the drive
for efficiencies. It will set economic incentives and performance indicators to
measure and to improve the efficiency of IMs and, finally, it will establish a European
Network of IMs to promote cross-border cooperation, with particular attention
paid to operations along RFCs and international passenger transport routes.

3.2 Opening
of the market for domestic passenger transport services by rail

Improvements in service quality and
efficiency are needed to make rail a more attractive choice for passengers and
to encourage modal shift. Better value for money can be achieved for scarce
public funds.

Markets for rail freight services have already
been fully opened to competition since January 2007[25] and
those for international passenger transport services as of 1 January 2010[26], yet national markets for domestic passenger transport services by
rail remain largely closed and are the bastions of national monopolies[27].

Ensuring high
quality, integrated services providing wider social benefits and lower external
impacts compared to other modes will continue to require a large proportion of
rail services across the EU (66% of passenger-km) to be provided under public
service contracts (PSCs), specified and subsidized by MS, regional or local
authorities.

Removing the
legal barrier by only allowing open access would have rather limited effects
given that most domestic services are covered by PSCs. Competition on domestic
markets should therefore be addressed at two levels with competition 'in the
market' for those services that can be provided through open access and competition
'for the market' to allow the transparent and cost-efficient award of PSCs, as experienced
today in some MS.

Existing rules give competent authorities
(CAs) extensive scope to directly award PSCs in rail transport, avoiding
competitive tendering procedures (which are generally required for PSCs in
other modes of public transport)[28].
Directly awarded PSCs constitute 42% of all EU passenger-kilometres[29], contributing to the fact that
in 16 out of 25 MS with rail, the incumbent holds above 90% market share[30].

Evidence of competition for PSCs in
Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands has shown that tendering accrues savings for
CAs, sometimes up to 20-30%[31],
which can be re-invested to improve services or be used elsewhere. Experience
in other liberalised markets such as Sweden and the UK has shown improvements
in quality and availability of services with passenger satisfaction rising year
on year and passenger growth of over 50% over ten years. Improved services
would bring clear benefits to passengers and savings of some €30-40bn to
taxpayers[32].

Stakeholders report that access to rolling
stock (trains) is a major constraint for new entrants. In at least eight MS,
ownership of rolling stock continues to be dominated by incumbent RUs, which
are unable or unwilling to make it available on attractive commercial terms. In
Austria, for example, several new entrants complained to the national regulator
Schienen-Control about ÖBB’s strategy of scrapping unnecessary rolling stock,
or selling it exclusively to RUs operating outside Austria, on condition that
they did not resell it to Austrian new entrants.

Mandatory ticketing systems run by national
incumbents, such as those in Germany and the Czech Republic, charge commissions
of up to 25% on all ticket sales. This discriminatory effect discourages new
market entry. Reimbursement to new entrants in some MS takes up to two years
whereas in others payments are made within eight days at 1.5% commission[33].

To eliminate legal barriers, the Commission
proposes, through amendment of the Directive establishing SERA, to open up the market for domestic passenger transport
services by rail with the possibility to limit access
when the economic equilibrium of a PSC is compromised.

By amending the Regulation[34] dealing with public service
obligations in public transport by road and by rail, the Commission aims to
introduce mandatory tendering of public service contracts as of December 2019.
The scope of those contracts and the underlying PSOs are to be defined in
compliance with criteria based on general Treaty principles. To avoid excessive
geographic scope of contracts being used to foreclose markets, the Commission
proposes a flexible definition of maximum contract volume. A minimum threshold below
which contracts may be awarded directly will enable competent authorities to
avoid organising a tendering procedure, if the expected savings of public funds
would not exceed the costs of tender. Contracts directly awarded after the adoption
of this legislative package will not be able to continue beyond31 December 2022.

To ensure that Member States and
regional/local contracting authorities establish public service contracts in a
coherent, integrated and efficient manner, the proposed provisions contain the
obligation for competent authorities to establish public transport plans setting
objectives for public passenger transport policy including general supply
performance patterns for public passenger transport. These plans should be
drafted in line with the requirements of urban mobility action plans[35]. Any additional administrative
burdens competent authorities related to bidding procedures for are normally be
offset by the expected savings in subsidies. To ensure maximum transparency, competent
authorities will be required to provide certain operational, technical and
financial data to all potential bidders for a public service contracts,
enabling them to prepare a well-informed offer, thereby enhancing competition and
enabling benefits for citizens to be achieved.

To preserve network effects, MS, CAs and RUs
will be encouraged to set up integrated ticketing schemes at national level
subject to non-discrimination requirements.

In MS without well-functioning leasing
markets for rail rolling stock, CAs will be required to take the necessary measures
to ensure non-discriminatory access to suitable rolling stock in order to
facilitate a high level of market contestability for PSCs.

In summary, these proposals will encourage
modal shift from road and air, create better value for money for the public
funds used and complete the circle of market opening already achieved in the
freight, international passenger and other transport markets.

3.3 Interoperability
and safety

Statistically
rail is far safer per passenger kilometre than road travel (with 62 passenger
fatalities in 2010, compared to 31,000 on EU roads[36]) and has continued to improve in
the last decade. So safety benefits would accrue through modal shift.

While the
current technical standards and approvals system creates a very safe system, it
is fragmented between the European Railway Agency (ERA) and national
authorities, creating excessive administrative costs and market access
barriers, especially for new entrants and rail vehicle manufacturers. In
particular national technical and safety rules remain alongside EU Technical
Specifications for Interoperability (TSIs), creating unnecessary complexities
for RUs. ERA estimates that there are currently over 11000 such rules in the EU[37].

Procedures to
authorise new rail vehicles can last up to two years and cost up to €6 million,
compared to much shorter periods and lower costs for authorising aircraft.
Stakeholder figures suggest procedural authorisation costs account for up to
10% of costs of locomotives per country, so authorisation of vehicles for use
in up to three Member States could constitute 30% of the purchase price.

Moreover, to
obtain safety certificates, RUs are required to pay the National Safety Agencies
(NSAs), and this has in some cases been known to cost RUs two man-years and up
to €70,000 for administrative and advisory costs[38]. Excessive red tape in the
market entry process has been identified as being particularly acute for new RUs,
as this category of operators are more vulnerable to complexity and delays in
procedures, given their limited human and financial resources.

There are
marked discrepancies between how NSAs conduct vehicle authorisation and safety
certification processes and established periods for issuing certificates and
authorisations are systematically circumvented by certain NSAs through requests
for additional documentation and tests.

To realise the
potential of the single market, a higher level of harmonisation is necessary at
EU level, so the Commission proposes revising the ERA Regulation to transfer to
the Agency competence for issuing vehicle authorisations for placing on the
market and for safety certification for RUs. While legal responsibility would
lie with ERA, it would work in close cooperation with the relevant NSAs. At the
same time it would have an enhanced role in the supervision of national rules
and monitoring NSAs, as well as in facilitating the deployment of the European
Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS). The proposed changes to ERA's role will
be reflected in amendments to the Railway Safety and Interoperability
Directives, providing an opportunity for clarifying and simplifying existing
provisions, consolidating previous amendments and updating the legislation.
Besides these changes, ERA's governance structure and internal operating
methods will be improved and aligned with the recently adopted Joint Statement
and Common Approach on EU decentralised agencies[39].

The aim of
these proposals is to achieve a 20% reduction in the time to market for new RUs
and a 20% reduction in the cost and time taken to authorise rolling stock. This
should lead to €500 million savings over five years[40] and contribute to the European
rail industry's competitive edge and leading position on world markets.

3.4       The social dimension

The rail sector will in the next decade face
simultaneously the challenges of an ageing working population and the
efficiency effects of market opening. Approximately 30% of all rail workers
will retire in the next 10 years[41]
leading to workforce shortages, while at the same time several RUs may need to
be restructured to improve productivity and efficiency. IM / RU separation will
require more people to do complementary tasks in the short term. It is
important to enable the rail sector to improve its attractiveness as an
employer for innovative and highly skilled professions with an adequate level
of remuneration.

To provide the necessary safeguards to
workers after market opening, existing legislation such as the Transfer of
Undertakings Directive[42]
lays down the conditions for the mandatory transfer of staff when a PSC is
awarded and assets such as rolling stock are transferred to another RU. The PSO
Regulation enables CAs to require that staff be transferred[43] and/or to set standards and
criteria when a PSC is awarded to another railway company. The effect of open
access operation is likely to be rather progressive with new entrants
encouraging growth and labour market opportunities.

Via their European social partner
organisations, European RUs may take part in the Railway Social Sectoral
Dialogue Committee.

The availability
of a skilled and highly motivated labour force in the sector is essential for
the supply of efficient and competitive transport services. Without tackling
the issue of job quality, optimal progress towards a sustainable transport
system is unlikely to be achieved. Competition, where introduced, has not led
to a deterioration of salaries in the rail sector[44]. Examples taken from open
markets prove that new entrants offer attractive salary conditions to ensure
they attract the best staff and grow their services. Employment levels after
market opening are not expected to decrease, as has been the experience in MS
whose national rail markets are already fully open such as the UK and Sweden[45]. In fact, employment levels
have fallen faster in countries with closed markets. Increased productivity and
attractiveness of rail transport will lead to demand increases and investments,
e.g. in new rolling stock, from which workers are likely to benefit.

4.           THE 4th RAILWAY PACKAGE

The 4th Railway Package comprises
legislative proposals to amend:

·
Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 21 November 2012 establishing a Single European Railway
Area (Recast)

·
Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport
services by rail and by road

·
Regulation (EC) No 881/2004 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 establishing a European Railway
Agency

·
Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on safety on the Community's railways

·
Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the interoperability of the rail system
within the Community

and to repeal Regulation (EEC) 1192/69 on
common rules for the normalisation of the accounts of railway undertakings.

5.           THE NEED FOR A STRATEGIC
INTEGRATED APPROACH

The low efficiency and quality of some rail
services are mainly the result of low competition, remaining market distortions
and suboptimal structures. Long and costly procedures, access barriers for new
entrants and different market access rules in MS are all addressed in the
Fourth Railway Package, which adopts a holistic approach.

The initiatives in the package are mutually
reinforcing: they all contribute to creating a more efficient and
customer-responsive industry and improving the relative attractiveness of the rail
sector vis-à-vis other modes. All measures facilitate the entry of new
operators into the market. Synergies will be achieved via the combined effects
of the individual initiatives. Effectiveness of de jure market opening
depends on ensuring that certain 'framework conditions' are in place and are effective,
such as non-discriminatory access to infrastructure, to suitable rolling stock,
to stations, or train path allocation including traffic management. To ensure
that market opening is a success, the benefits of network effects need to be
preserved. Some of these framework conditions will be addressed through the initiatives
related to the opening of the market for domestic
passenger transport services by rail and others via the proposal on enhanced
infrastructure management. To lower the access barriers for new entrants,
synergies are expected through reducing discrimination in access to
infrastructure and providing simplified procedures for issuance of safety
certificates for RU and vehicle authorisations for placing on the market.

These changes will raise the level of competition,
guarantee full financial transparency and remove any risk of
cross-subsidisation between (often publically funded) IMs and train service
provision by RUs. They should result in fair financing conditions and reduce
risks of conflicts of interest. Fair market access and the increasing number of
operators will ultimately generate new business activity and additional
traffic. Increasing competitive pressure and specialisation of the market
players will also have a positive effect on productivity and efficiency and
lead to increases in investment into rail transport infrastructure.

A combination of 'open access' and
competitive tendering of PSCs will allow further market opening as has already
been achieved in the freight and international passenger market, with evidence
in the more mature freight market that it has led to a higher market share for
rail. The proposal is a key step in the completion of SERA.

Increased competition should enhance the
attractiveness of rail and make the sector more responsive to customers' needs,
allowing rail operators to compete with other modes. Passenger high speed
services will make rail more competitive with regard to air and rail freight
increasing market share and contributing to achieving climate change targets.

Growth of rail activity will increase the
demand for qualified rail workers in RUs and operators of rail services
facilities but also the demand for rolling stock, therefore creating new jobs
in rail manufacturing.

Making the safety certification and vehicle
authorisation processes more efficient, ensuring that safety certificates and
vehicle authorisations are granted and recognised on a non-discrimination basis
across the EU and making national legal frameworks more consistent will help to
ensure that the time to market for new RUs is shorter and more responsive.

The Fourth Railway Package delivers an
integrated approach that will create conditions for growth of overall rail
traffic, increasing its market share as it becomes more reliable and more
efficient. It will make for better services and will allow rail to fulfil its
underused potential so that it becomes a real and attractive alternative.

The Fourth Railway package also includes:

·
Commission Report on the progress made towards
achieving interoperability of the rail system;

·
Commission Report on the profile and tasks of
other train crew members;

·
Commission Report on the implementation of the
provisions of Directive 2007/58/EC on the opening of the market of
international rail passenger transport;

·
Commission Staff Working Document on the Impact
Assessment related to the revision of the ERA regulation;

·
Commission Staff Working Document on the Impact
Assessment related to opening of the market for
domestic passenger transport services by rail;

·
Commission Staff Working Document on the Impact
Assessment related to the governance of railway infrastructure in the single
European railway area.

[1]               Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area - Towards
a competitive and resource efficient transport system COM (2011) 144 final

[2]               Includes Infrastructure Managers (IMs) that are
integrated with Railway Undertakings (RUs) (holdings)

[3]               463000 working in passenger railways

[4]               IA on the opening of the
market for domestic passenger transport services by rail (IA)

[5]               2011 Transport White Paper

[6]               SWD(2012) 246 final/2

[7]               SDG Report - Further action at European Level (2012)

[8]               Everis study on regulatory options on market opening
(2010)

[9]               SDG Report - Further action at European Level (2012)

[10]             http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_388_en.pdf

[11]             http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_326_en.pdf

[12]             http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/consumer_research/cms_en.htm

[13]             IA on the opening
of the market for domestic passenger transport services by rail

[14]             Directive 2012/34/EU

[15]             http://www.unife.org/page.asp?pid=194

[16]             COM (2011) 650final/2

[17]             COM/2011/0665 final

[18]             EUCO 76/12 / EUCO 156/12

[19]             COM(2012) 573 final

[20]             Governance IA

[21]             Governance IA. This decision of the Italian Competition
Authority was recently subject to an appeal by FS companies to the regional
administrative tribunal (TAR) which has not yet ruled on the case.

[22]             Decision 12-D-25 dated 18
December 2012.

[23]             Regulation (EU) No 913/2010

[24]             EVES-Rail Economic effects of Vertical Separation (Nov
2012)   
Realising the potential of GB Rail (Sir Roy McNulty May 2011)

[25]             Directive 2004/51/EC amending Directive 91/440/EEC

[26]             Directive 2007/58/EC amending Directive 91/440/EEC

[27]             The UK, Germany, Sweden and Italy, have unilaterally
opened their domestic markets

[28]             Regulation 1370/2007

[29]             IA on the opening of the
market for domestic passenger transport services by rail

[30]             Market share below 50% only in the UK, Sweden and
Estonia

[31]             Domestic Passenger Rail Markets IA

[32]             SDG Report

[33]             Domestic Passenger Rail Markets IA

[34]             Regulation (EC) 1370/2007 repealing Council Regulations
(EEC) Nos. 1191/69 and 1107/70

[35]             COM(2009) 490 final

[36]             Eurostat data

[37]             Interoperability and Safety IA

[38]             Interoperability and Safety IA

[39]             Council of the EU (2012) 11450/12

[40]             Interoperability and Safety IA

[41]             Domestic Passenger Rail Markets IA

[42]             Directive 2001/23/EC

[43]             Beyond application of Directive 2001/23/EC

[44]             Domestic Passenger Rail Markets IA

[45]             Domestic Passenger Rail Markets IA