Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 96/49/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States with regard to the transport of dangerous goods by rail"(1)

(1999/C 329/04)

On 7 June 1999 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 71(1)(c) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned 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 20 July 1999. The rapporteur was Mr Giesecke.

At its 366th plenary session on 22 and 23 September 1999 (meeting of 22 September) the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 110 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions.

1. Introduction

1.1. The general public in all Member States of the European Union takes a great interest in the transport of dangerous goods and measures relating to such transport.

1.2. The present proposal is intended to ensure quality and safety standards in the carriage of dangerous goods by rail.

1.3. It refers to Directive 96/49/EC, which to date has not been incorporated completely into national laws.

1.4. The key problem is that EU standards on tanks and receptacles for transporting dangerous goods in class 2 (gases) by the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) have not be brought into force as ordered in accordance with Directive 96/49/EC.

1.5. These gases are transported by rail packed in such things as cigarette lighters, aerosols, camping stoves, or as fuel for private homes or industrial use.

1.6. In all Member States over the past 80 years or so there have been various provisions in industrial law and transport law concerning the packing and transporting of class 2 gases.

1.7. These national laws can be very different simply on technical grounds, especially for climatic reasons (e.g. in Finland or Greece). So, a common European standard is necessary.

1.8. Governments and professional organisations in each Member State are affected by this standardisation. So, in each Member State there is a considerable need for a meeting of the minds.

1.9. Common ground must be found between proposals from national and EU-level associations, although interests differ very considerably. However, for the ESC it is not entirely unexpected that no CEN standard has yet been agreed, even though safety and environmental considerations require one.

2. The Commission's proposal

2.1. The Commission wants to extend the deadlines set in Directive 96/49/EC, for the reasons given in the introduction.

2.2. It proposes deadlines itself or, because of the complexities involved, refers some extensions to the "Adaptation Committee", in accordance with Article 9.

2.3. An additional proposal lays down that "ad hoc conditions" may continue to apply to the carriage of dangerous goods within the territory of a single state.

3. General comments

3.1. The Commission's proposal is appropriate and welcomed, for the reasons given above.

3.2. The ESC recommends that individual Member States be allowed to apply stricter standards than the RID for local transport operations. This is also conducive to equality of opportunity for road hauliers.

3.3. As low standards are also a possibility however, the Committee would ask the Commission to clarify what it understands by "local transport". Under no circumstances must the meaning of this term be broadened to cover large stretches of a distribution area.

3.4. In view of various occurrences in the past, the ESC trusts that the governments responsible will impose the strictest standards when granting derogations for "ad hoc transport operations".

4. Specific comments

4.1. Article 6(9) of the proposed directive bans discrimination in relation to the derogation for "local transport". The Committee would call for a matching ban in relation to the derogation for "ad hoc transport operations" under Article 6(11).

4.2. In its assessment of the "current situation" the proposal states that this directive should have come into force on 1 January 1999.

4.3. As this has not happened to date, national law continues to apply.

4.4. The ESC understands the Commission's initial position of "wait and see" when submitting a draft directive but feels that the present proposal should be enacted in good time, before the expiry of the transitional provisions.

Brussels, 22 September 1999.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI

(1) OJ C 181 of 26.6.1999, p. 25.