----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community's railways

(COM(2004) 139 final — 2004/0047 (COD))

(2005/C 221/13)

On 28 April 2004 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 71 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 17 January 2005. The rapporteur was Mr Chagas.

At its 414th plenary session (meeting of 9 February 2005), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 122 votes to 53 with 12 abstentions.

1.   Introduction

2.   The European Commission Proposal

3.   Evaluation of the Proposal

3.1   Prerequisites for revitalising the railway industry

3.2   Ex-post analysis of the deregulation of rail freight services

3.3   Ex-ante analysis of the deregulation of international rail-passenger services

3.4   Effects of deregulation on regional and public services

3.5   Effects on quality of service for customers

3.6   Effect on Employment

3.7   Effects on rail operators in the new Member States

4.   Conclusion

Brussels, 9 February 2005.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  Directive 2001/12/EC – OJ L 75, 15.3.2001, p. 1 – EESC opinion – OJ C 209, 22.7.1999, p. 22

(2)  Directive 2001/13/EC – OJ L 75, 15.3.2001, p. 26 – EESC opinion – OJ C 209, 22.7.1999, p. 22

(3)  Directive 2001/14/EC – OJ L 75, 15.3.2001, p. 29 – EESC opinion – OJ C 209, 22.7.1999, p. 22

(4)  Directive 2004/51/EC – OJ L 164, 30.4.2004, p. 164 – EESC opinion – OJ C 61, 14.3.2003, p. 131

(5)  Directive 2004/49/EC – OJ L 164, 30.4.2004, p. 44 – EESC opinion – OJ C 61, 14.3.2003, p. 131

(6)  Regulation (EC) No. 881/2004 – OJ L 164, 30.4.2004, p. 1 – EESC opinion – OJ C 61, 14.3.2003, p. 131

(7)  Directive 2004/50/EC – OJ L 164, 30.4.2004, p. 114 – EESC opinion – OJ C 61, 14.3.2003, p. 131

(8)OJ C 61, 14.3.2003, p. 131

(9)  See footnote 8.

(10)  Article 2(d) of Directive 2004/51/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community's railways.

(11)  EU Rail Passenger Liberalisation: Extended impact assessment, February 2004 by Steer Davies Gleave, London.

----

APPENDIX

to the Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (in accordance with Rule 54(3) of the Rules of Procedure)

The following proposals for amendments, which won more than a quarter of the votes cast, were rejected in the course of the discussions.

Point 3.1.4

Delete.

Reason

This point does not have anything to do with the deregulation of the railways. Two sectors are being mixed up in an opinion that deals with the development of the Community's railways. It cannot be said that the monitoring of social legislation in road transport is a serious problem, given the existence of various laws on driving and rest times and the working hours of drivers. All this legislation is monitored by macrograph. Moreover, August 2005 will see the introduction of a new monitoring system, the digital tachograph, which will allow for more accurate monitoring of drivers' working hours.

Results of voting

For: 58

Against: 80

Abstention: 7

Point 3.1.6

Delete the last sentence:

‘This would include introducing European social legislation on the railway industry.’

Reason

Rail safety in the EU has been regulated by Directive 2004/49 EC.

Results of voting

For: 52

Against: 93

Abstention: 5

Point 3.2.3

Replace with the following:

‘In the EESC's view, it would be advisable to analyse the content of this report upon publication in order to ascertain whether the proposal for a directive ought to be amended or modified.’

Reason

In effect, the current wording calls for a halt to the legislative process, which fosters a kind of legal uncertainty that is detrimental to all involved — businesses, employees and customers.

It would seem that a more positive and constructive approach would be to show a clear willingness to take the conclusions on board in order to amend or modify the proposal if necessary.

Thus, a dynamic and open process is maintained throughout.

Results of voting

For: 54

Against: 92

Abstention: 9

Points 3.4.7 and 3.4.8

Replace with the following and number the new point as 3.4.7:

‘When the new proposal to amend Regulation (EEC) No. 1191/69 is submitted to the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament, the implications of the text in terms of the deregulation of rail passenger services and maintaining the balance of public service transport should be discussed.’

Reason

The current wording refers to a situation that is no longer relevant. A new text has been drawn up by the Commission and may be submitted to the Transport Council in June. It is not possible to predict what sort of reception it will be given by either the Council of Ministers or the European Parliament.

The suggested wording is in line with a more constructive approach.

Results of voting

For: 68

Against: 90

Abstention: 8

Point 3.6

Delete.

Reason

It cannot be said that the deregulation of rail transport will lead to job losses and that the new jobs created will be of poorer quality, when the deregulation of all other modes of transport has resulted in an increase in jobs. It must be stressed that rail transport is the only mode that has not been deregulated.

Results of voting

For: 66

Against: 102

Abstention: 6.

----