COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 251 (2) of the EC Treaty concerning the common position of the Council on the adoption of a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council on the interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system

1999/0252 (COD)

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 251 (2) of the EC Treaty concerning the common position of the Council on the adoption of a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council on the interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system

1. BACKGROUND

On 26 November 1999, the Commission submitted to the European Parliament and the Council a communication on the integration of the conventional rail transport systems, together with a proposal for a Directive on the interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system (COM(1999)617 final [1]).

[1] OJ ...

The Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions expressed favourable opinions on 24 May 2000 and 14 June 2000.

On 17 May 2000, the European Parliament adopted a series of amendments on first reading. The Commission expressed agreement with most of the amendments, but did not accept certain amendments for the reasons set out below (amendments 28, 29, 35, 39 and 40).

On 22 June 2000, in preparation for the 26 June Transport Council, the Commission confirmed its position on the EP's amendments in a letter to the Council President.

At the 26 June Council meeting political agreement was reached with a view to the adoption of a Common Position.

The Common Position was adopted on 10 November 2000.

2. PURPOSE OF THE COMMISSION PROPOSAL

COM(1999)617 proposes a policy for integrating the national conventional rail systems, in particular in order to raise the competitiveness of international rail services. The central recommendation is for a Directive on the interoperability of conventional rail transport similar to that already adopted for the high-speed system; a proposal for a Directive accompanies the communication.

Extending interoperability, i.e the capacity for trains to operate across national frontiers without stopping would greatly increase rail transport performance.

Divergent technical standards also tend to fragment the market for rail equipment. The main national markets remain largely closed. Railways are locked into buying from national suppliers, which raises procurement costs. Technical harmonisation at Community level would contribute to the creation of a single market.

The Community tackled these problems in the case of high-speed rail transport by adopting a Directive in 1996 on the interoperability of the high-speed system. It is now time to deal with the technical and operational differences that divide the conventional systems.

The proposed Directive would establish Community mechanisms for preparing and adopting technical specifications for interoperability (TSIs), and common rules for the assessment of conformity with the specifications.

3. COMMENTS ON THE COMMON POSITION

3.1. General comment

The Commission endorses the text of the Common Position which was adopted unanimously by the Council and was not the subject of any Commission reservation.

Generally speaking, the amendments adopted by the EP on first reading have been incorporated into the Common Position by the Council, with the exception of the EP amendments concerning which the Commission expressed its disagreement.

The numbering of the articles and amendments below refers to the Council and European Parliament texts dating from the European Parliament Resolution of 17 May 2000. In reality the text of the Common Position contains a new numbering of the recitals and articles to take account of certain improvements introduced by the Council and clarified in its Explanatory Memorandum.

3.2. Action taken on Parliament's amendments on first reading

3.2.1 Amendments rejected

Amendment 39 (Article 18(3)) and amendment 40 (Annex VII)

The Member State decides how to check compliance with the TSIs in force in accordance with Article 14(2). The proposal for a Directive provides for the involvement of external bodies during the phases of the placing of the interoperability constituents on the market and placing in service of the subsystems, but not for the subsequent phase of operation.

While this idea is interesting, it does not seem wise at his stage to oblige Member States to resort to such bodies after the subsystems have been placed in service. Such an obligation would entail an extension of the scope of the Directive, and would seem premature at his stage. This concept could be re-examined within five to ten years after the adoption and effective implementation of the TSIs.

3.2.2 Amendments partially incorporated in the Common Position

Amendment 3 (recital 6a)

The reference to the EP opinion of 10 March 1999 is acceptable but the Coucil preferred to refer to another EP request which is a better justification for this Directive.

Amendment 35 (Article 7(1) case (f))

Case (f) is not acceptable because the general principle behind the Directive is that it should apply to all operational rolling stock in order to guarantee the level of safety laid down for the whole of the trans-European rail system. Wagons from third countries are to be treated as specific cases in the TSIs, as provided for in the definition in Article 2(k), introduced by amendment 41 (accepted), and in the new Article 5(5), introduced by amendment 42 (accepted subject to a slight change).

However, this amendment has been partially incorporated since the Common Position indicates in Article 7, para 1 a derogation case "f): for wagons from or to a third country where the track gauge is different from that of the main Community network"; the derogation will, however be subject to a Commission decision in accordance with the de l'Article 21, para 2 procedure, i.e after the Committee has given its opinion.

Amendment 37 (Article 7, para 2)

Introducing the concept of registers is interesting. However, the infrastructure and rolling stock registers must be drawn up for whole subsystems, and not only in cases where the TSI (Technical Specification for Interoperability) are not applied. Even when the TSIs are applied, specific cases and choices remain possible, and all the characteristics that have actually been installed must be recorded in the registers.

This amendment has therefore been partially incorporated.

Amendment 25 (Article 21, para 2)

The text of Article 21 of the Common Position reflects the interinstitutional agreement on "comitology".

Amendment 28 (Article 22(3))

Adopting fundamental parameters is planned as the first phase of each TSI. As each TSI is the subject of an individual mandate, the last part of the added text (...the Commission shall have the task of drawing up... a uniform standard...) is not acceptable. Moreover, the proposed measure is incompatible with the order of priority referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the same Article.

Amendments 29 and 54 (Article 24 (1)), and oral amendment

The provisions concerning the application of the TSIs can be transposed even if the TSIs have not yet been adopted. The wording must therefore be looked at againin this connection. The time limit for incorporation into national law proposed by the Council is slightly longer (24 months instead of 18).

3.2.3 Amendments incorporated in full into the Common Position

The following amendments have been incorporated in full: 5 (recital 15a), 6 (recital 15b), 47 (recital 27), 41 (Article 2, para k), 10 (Article 2, para ma), 13 (Article 5, para 4b), 49 (Article 6, para 1), 14 (Article 6, para 2), 16 (Article 6, para 5), 18 (Article 6, para 7), 19 (Article 6, para 7a), 50 (Article 6, para 7b), 51 (Article 7, para 1), 21 (Article 10, para 2), 52 (Article 10, para 6), 53/23 (Article 14), 27 (Article 22, para 2), 55 (Article 24a), 43 (Annex I), oral amendment (Annex II, point 1), 33 (Annex II), 56 (Annex III), 57 (Annex III), 34 (Annexe VIII).

3.2.4 Amendments accepted in a slightly different form

The following amendments have been slightly amended to ensure that they can be incorporated more harmoniuosly: 1 (recital 5), 44 (recital 5a), 36 (recital 8), 48 (Article 1), 11 (Article 5, para 3), 42 (Article 5, para 4), 15 (Article 6, para 4), 17 (Article 6, para 6), 24 (Article 18, para 2), 45 (Article 22, para 1), 46 (Article 25).

3.3. New elements

Apart from acting on the EP amendments, the Council has introduced the following new elements which the Commission can accept:

- new recital 1a: reference to Kyoto;

- new recital 1b: reference to the Council's strategy;

- recital 9: amendment requested by the Council;

- new recital 16: preliminary to EP amendment 19;

- Article 7, para.1: it was necessary to specify that the Commission decision does not affect the "gauge" parameters in the case of requests for derogations for a project to renew or redevelop an existing line where the track gauge or tension is incompatible with the existing line. These are major structural differences where recital 15 applies particularly;

- Article 10, para. 5: analogy with Article 16, para. 3;

- Annex II, points 2.1-2.5-2.6: useful clarifications;

- Annex III, points 1.1.5-2.3.1-2.5.1-2.7.1-2.7.4: useful clarifications .

4. CONCLUSION

The Commission endorses the text of the Common Position.