[pic] | COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES |

Brussels, 3.5.2006

SEC(2006) 530

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Annexes to the Communication on the implementation of the railway infrastructure package Directives (‘First Railway Package’)

{COM(2006) 189 final}

Introduction

This Communication is in response to the request of the European co-legislators, in other words the European Parliament and the Council, in Article 10(8) of Directive 91/440/EC, as amended by Directive 2004/51/EC[1] in the context of the second railway package

The request is as follows :

“By 1 January 2006, the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the Council a report on the implementation of this Directive.

This report shall address:

- implementation of this Directive in the Member States and the effective working of the various bodies involved,

- market development, in particular international traffic trends, activities and market share of all market actors, including new entrants,

- impact on the overall transport sector, in particular as regards modal shift,

- impact on the level of safety in each Member State,

- working conditions in the sector, for each Member State.

If necessary, it shall be accompanied by suitable proposals or recommendations on continuing Community action to develop the railway market and the legal framework governing it.”

The development of rail transport in the EU has been addressed in several policy documents adopted by the Commission since the beginning of the nineties[2], which have been discussed in the above mentioned Communication. This Commission Staff Working Document contains the annexes referred to in the Communication. It contains an overview of the relevant EU legislation and the measures adopted in each Member State to comply with the provisions of the rail infrastructure package (‘the first package’, Annex 1). The annex provides an overview of the access rights to the railway infrastructure under the applicable EU legislation. The railway industry (railway undertakings, infrastructure managers and shippers) and the social partners have provided their views on the implementation of the first package in several policy documents. A summary of the main points is included in Annex 3. The separation of accounts and the independence of essential functions are addressed respectively in Annexes 4, 5 and 6. The latter analyses the advantages and disadvantages of the (dis-)integration of essential infrastructure management functions. This analysis also covers other network industries, such as the energy and telecommunication sectors. The role and function of the Regulatory Bodies, as foreseen by Article 30 of Directive 2001/14/EC are summarized in Annex 7 The issue of charging for the use of railway infrastructure is discussed in Annex 8. The number of new railway undertakings is a useful indicator for market opening: issues in relation to the award of licences to new railway undertakings and market entry barriers are discussed in Annex 9. Annex 10 contains an analysis of the performance of railway undertakings and in particular the financial situation of the railway undertakings. Annexes 11 and 12 provide an overview of the developments in freight and passenger transport in the European Union. The development of railway safety is addressed in Annex 13 and Annex 14 discusses the development of employment in the railway sector before and after the introduction of railway restructuring.

ANNEX

List of Annexes

1. Annex 1 Applicable EU legislation on the railway sector and national transposition measures for the 1st railway infrastructure package (directives 2001/12/EC, 2001/13/EC and 2001/14/EC).

2. Annex 2 Rail transport in the EU - Open access rights in the Member States as of 1.2.2006.

3. Annex 3 Observations and Comments made by stakeholders on the implementation of the 1st infrastructure package.

4. Annex 4 Separation of accounts.

5. Annex 5 Independence of the essential functions for ensuring non-discriminatory access to the rail infrastructure

6. Annex 6 Unbundling Infrastructure and Operations in Network Industries: The case of the railway sector.

7. Annex 7 Regulatory Bodies.

8. Annex 8 Charging in the rail sector.

9. Annex 9 Licensing of railway undertakings.

10. Annex 10 Analysis of the Performance of Railway Undertakings.

11. Annex 11 Freight Transport Statistics.

12. Annex 12 Passenger Transport Statistics.

13. Annex 13 Railway Safety.

14. Annex 14 Employment and Working conditions.

ANNEX 1

Applicable EU Legislation in the Railway Sector and national Transpositions Measures for the first Railway Package Directives

1. MARKET AND INFRASTRUCTURE ACCESS

Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the development of the Community's railways, OJ L 237, 24.8.1991, p. 25 [3] , modified by:

- Directive 2001/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community's railways, OJ L 75, 15.3.2001, p. 1

- Directive 2004/51/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 amending Council Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community's railways, OJ L 164, 30.4.2004, p. 164 , rectified by:

- Corrigendum to Directive 2004/51/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 amending Council Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community’s railways , OJ L 220, 21.6.2004, p. 58

Council Directive 95/18/EC of 19 June 1995 on the licensing of railway undertakings, OJ L 143, 27.6.1995, p. 70 [4] , modified by:

- Directive 2001/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings, OJ L 75, 15.3.2001, p. 26

- Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on safety on the Community's railways and amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings and Directive 2001/14/EC on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (Railway Safety Directive), OJ L 164, 30.4.2004, p. 44 , corrected by :

- Corrigendum to Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on safety on the Community’s railways and amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings and Directive 2001/14/EC on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (Railway Safety Directive), OJ L 220, 21.6.2004, p. 16

Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification , OJ L 75, 15.3.2001, p. 29 , modified by :

- Commission Decision 2002/844/EC of 23 October 2002 amending Directive 2001/14/EC in respect of the date for changing the working timetable for rail transport (Text with EEA relevance), OJ L 289, 26.10.2002, p. 30

- Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on safety on the Community's railways and amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings and Directive 2001/14/EC on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (Railway Safety Directive), OJ L 164, 30.4.2004, p. 44 , corrected by:

- Corrigendum to Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on safety on the Community’s railways and amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings and Directive 2001/14/EC on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (Railway Safety Directive) , OJ L 220, 21.6.2004, p. 16

2. INTEROPERABILITY

Council Directive 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996 on the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system, OJ L 235, 17.9.1996, p. 6

2.1. Implementing decisions:

- Commission Decision 1999/569/EC of 28 July 1999 on the basic parameters for the command-and-control and signalling subsystem relating to the trans-European high-speed rail system (Text with EEA relevance), OJ L 216, 14.8.1999, p. 23

- Commission Decision 2001/260/EC of 21 March 2001 on the basic parameters of the command-control and signalling subsystem of the trans-European high-speed rail system referred to as "ERTMS characteristics" in Annex II(3) to Directive 96/48/EC (Text with EEA relevance), OJ L 93, 3.4.2001, p. 53

- Commission Decision 2002/730/EC of 30 May 2002 concerning the technical specification for interoperability relating to the maintenance subsystem of the trans-European high-speed rail system referred to in Article 6(1) of Directive 96/48/EC (Text with EEA relevance), OJ L 245, 12.9.2002, p. 1

- Commission Decision 2002/731/EC of 30 May 2002 concerning the technical specification for interoperability relating to the control-command and signalling subsystem of the trans-European high-speed rail system referred to in Article 6(1) of Council Directive 96/48/EC (Text with EEA relevance), OJ L 245, 12.9.2002, p. 37 , Annex A modified by:

- Commission Decision 2004/447/EC of 29 April 2004 modifying Annex A to Decision 2002/731/EC of 30 May 2002 and establishing the main characteristics of Class A system (ERTMS) of the control-command and signalling subsystem of the trans-European conventional rail system referred to in Directive 2001/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, OJ L 155, 30.4.2004, p. 69 , corrected by:

- Corrigendum to Commission Decision 2004/447/EC of 29 April 2004 modifying Annex A to Decision 2002/731/EC of 30 May 2002 and establishing the main characteristics of Class A system (ERTMS) of the control-command and signalling subsystem of the trans-European conventional rail system referred to in Directive 2001/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, OJ L 193, 1.6.2004, p. 53

- Commission Decision 2002/732/EC of 30 May 2002 concerning the technical specification for interoperability relating to the infrastructure subsystem of the trans-European high-speed rail system referred to in Article 6(1) of Council Directive 96/48/EC (Text with EEA relevance), OJ L 245, 12.9.2002, p. 143

- Commission Decision 2002/733/EC of 30 May 2002 concerning the technical specification for interoperability relating to the energy subsystem of the trans-European high-speed rail system referred to in Article 6(1) of Directive 96/48/EC (Text with EEA relevance), OJ L 245, 12.2.2002, p. 280

- Commission Decision 2002/734/EC of 30 May 2002 concerning the technical specification for interoperability relating to the operation subsystem of the trans-European high-speed rail system referred to in Article 6(1) of Council Directive 96/48/EC (Text with EEA relevance), OJ L 245, 12.9.2002, p. 370

- Commission Decision 2002/735/EC of 30 May 2002 concerning the technical specification for interoperability relating to the rolling stock subsystem of the trans-European high-speed rail system referred to in Article 6(1) of Directive 96/48/EC (Text with EEA relevance), OJ L 245, 12.9.2002, p. 402

Directive 96/48/EC modified by:

- Directive 2004/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 amending Council Directive 96/48/EC on the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system and Directive 2001/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system, OJ L 164, 30.4.2004, p. 114 , corrected by :

- Corrigendum to Directive 2004/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 amending Council Directive 96/48/EC on the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system and Directive 2001/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system, OJ L 220, 21.6.2004, p. 40

Directive 2001/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2001 on the interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system, OJ L 110, 20.4.2001, p. 1

2.2. Implementing decisions:

- Commission Decision 2004/446/EC of 29 April 2004 specifying the basic parameters of the Noise, Freight Wagons and Telematic applications for freight Technical Specifications for Interoperability referred to in Directive 2001/16/EC, OJ L 155, 30.4.2004, p. 1 , corrected by:

- Corrigendum to Commission Decision 2004/446/EC of 29 April 2004 specifying the basic parameters of the Noise, Freight Wagons and Telematic applications for freight Technical Specifications for Interoperability referred to in Directive 2001/16/EC, OJ L 193, 1.6.2004, p. 1

- Commission Decision 2004/447/EC of 29 April 2004 modifying Annex A to Decision 2002/731/EC of 30 May 2002 and establishing the main characteristics of Class A system (ERTMS) of the control-command and signalling subsystem of the trans-European conventional rail system referred to in Directive 2001/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, OJ L 155, 30.4.2004, p. 69 , corrected by:

- Corrigendum to Commission Decision 2004/447/EC of 29 April 2004 modifying Annex A to Decision 2002/731/EC of 30 May 2002 and establishing the main characteristics of Class A system (ERTMS) of the control-command and signalling subsystem of the trans-European conventional rail system referred to in Directive 2001/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, OJ L 193, 1.6.2004, p. 53

- Commission Regulation (EC) No 62/2006 of 23 December 2005 concerning the technical specification for interoperability relating to the telematic applications for freight subsystem of the trans-European conventional rail system, OJ L 13, 18.1.2006, p. 1

- Commission Decision 2006/66/EC of 23 December 2005 concerning the technical specification for interoperability relating to the subsystem "rolling stock – noise" of the trans-European conventional rail, OJ L 37, 8.2.2006, p. 1

Directive 2001/16/EC modified by:

- Directive 2004/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 amending Council Directive 96/48/EC on the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system and Directive 2001/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system, OJ L 164, 30.4.2004, p. 114 , rectified by:

- Corrigendum to Directive 2004/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 amending Council Directive 96/48/EC on the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system and Directive 2001/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system, OJ L 220, 21.6.2004, p. 40

3. EUROPEAN RAILWAY AGENCY

Regulation (EC) 881/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 establishing a European Railway Agency (Agency Regulation), OJ L 164, 30.4.2004, p. 1 , corrected by:

- Corrigendum to Regulation (EC) 881/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 establishing a European railway agency (Agency Regulation), OJ L 220, 21.6.2004, p. 3

4. NATIONAL TRANSPOSITION MEASURES

All the Member States except Luxemburg, have implemented the directives of the infrastructure package. The Commission had to launch several infringement procedures for non-notification, 5 of which lead to a ruling by the Court of Justice.

An overview of the national measures is given below, including references to national websites where the full texts can be viewed. This table can also be found on the following website, which is updated at regular intervals:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/rail/countries/be/mne_en.htm

An overview of the Court rulings is given at the end of this annex.

MS | Measures Communicated? | Related Legislation |

BE | Yes | Loi du 22/3/2002 portant modification de la loi du 21 mars 1991 portant réforme de certaines entreprises publiques économiques, Moniteur belge du 26/3/2002, p. 12554; Arrêté ministériel du 26 mars 1999 portant approbation des normes et règles afférentes à la sécurité de l'infrastructure ferroviaire et à son utilisation, Moniteur belge du 15 avril 1999, p. 12342 - 12381; Arrêté royal No. 98-3469 du 11/12/1998, relatif à la licence d'entreprise ferroviaire et à l'utilisation de l'infrastructure ferroviaire, moniteur belge du 24/12/1998, p. 40872; Arrêté royal No. 99-795 du 11/12/1998, relatif à la licence d'entreprise ferroviaire et à l'utilisation de l'infrastructure ferroviaire - Addendum, moniteur belge du 20/03/1999, p. 9183; Arrêté ministériel No. 99-901 du 23/3/1999 fixant les modalités d'attribution des capacités d'infrastructure ferroviaire, moniteur belge du 31/3/1999, p. 10402; Arrêté royal relatif aux conditions d'utilisation de l'infrastructure ferroviaire du 12 mars 2003, Moniteur belge du 14 mars 2003, 3ème édition, p. 12536-12580, modifié par l'arrêté royal du 11 juin 2004, Moniteur belge du 15 juin 2004, p. 44415 - 44424; Arrêté ministériel du 14 mars 2003 portant exécution de l'article 100 de l'AR du 12 mars 2003 relatif aux conditions d'utilisation de l'infrastructure ferroviaire et à son utilisation, Moniteur belge du 12 juin 2003, édition 2, p. 31811; Arrêté royal du 17 novembre 2003 portant exécution des chapitres III, V, et VI de l'arrêté royal du 12 mars 2003 relatif aux conditions d'utilisation de l'infrastructure ferroviaire, Moniteur belge du 2 décembre 2003, p. 57466 - 57478; Arrêté royal du 7 septembre 2003 portant attribution de la qualité d'officier de polic judiciaire aux fonctionnaires et agents de l'Administration qui est compétente pour le transport ferroviaire, Moniteur belge du 2 octobre 2003, p. 48268 - 48270; Mise à jour du 15 septembre 2003 de l'inventaire des règlements visés aux articles 4 et 6 de l'arrêté royal du 12 mars 2003 relatif aux conditions d'utilisation de l'infrastructure ferroviaire exécutant les directives 2001/12/CE, 2001/13/CE et 2001/14/CE du 26 février 2001, Moniteur belge du 15 décembre 2003, p. 59151; Arrêté ministériel du 19 février 2004 portant approbation du document de référence du réseau, Moniteur belge du 27 février 2004, Ed. 3, p. 11392. Le Document de référence réseau est publié par l'office ferroviaire et disponible en FR et NL sur: http://www.railaccess.be; Arrêté royal du 14 juin 2004 portant réforme des structures de gestion de l'infrastructure ferroviaire, Moniteur belge du 24 juin 2004, p. 51791 - 51801; Arrêté royal du 19 octobre 2004 portant certaines mesures de réorganisation de la Société Nationale des Chemins de fer belges, Moniteur belge du 20 octobre 2004, p. 72961 - 72977; Arrêté royal du 19 octobre 2004 réglant le fonctionnement du Fonds de l'Infrastructure ferroviaire, Moniteur belge du 20 octobre 2004, p. 72990 - 72992; Arrêté royal du 19 octobre 2004 relatif aux conditions d'entretien et de gestion par Infrabel de l'infrastructure ferroviaire détenue par le Fonds de l'Infrastructure ferroviaire, Moniteur belge du 20 octobre 2004, p. 72992 - 73005; Arrêté royal du 19 octobre 2004 établissant les statuts de la Nouvelle SNCB, Moniteur belge du 20 octobre 2004, p. 72977 - 72990; Arrêté royal du 25 octobre 2004 créant le Service de Régulation du transport ferroviaire et fixant sa composition ainsi que le statut applicable à ses membres, Moniteur belge du 5 novembre 2004, p. 75096 - 75097; Site internet du Ministère de la Justice avec la législation belge consolidée en vigueur: http://194.7.188.126/justice/index_fr.htm ou: http://www.staatsblad.be/index_fr.htm Wet houdende wijziging van de wet van 21/03/1991 betreffende de hervorming van sommige economische overheidsbedrijven, Belgisch Staatsblad van 26/03/2002, p. 12554; Koninklijk besluit Nr. 98-3469 van 11/12/1998, betreffende de vergunning van spoorwegonderneming en het gebruik van de spoorweginfrastructuur, Belgisch staatsblad 24/12/1998, p. 40872; Koninklijk besluit Nr. 99-795 van 11/12/1998, betreffende de vergunning van spoorwegonderneming en het gebruik van de spoorweginfrastructuur. - Addendum, Belgisch staatsblad 20/03/1999, p. 9183; Ministerieel besluit Nr. 99-901 van 23/03/1999 tot vaststelling van de modaliteiten voor de toewijzing van de spoorweginfrastructuurcapaciteit, Belgisch staatsblad 31/3/1999, p 10402. Ministerieel besluit van 26 maart 1999 houdende goedkeuring van de normen en voorschriften inzake de veiligheid van de spoorweginfrastructuur en haar gebruik, Belgisch staatsblad van 15 april 1999, p. 12342 - 12381; Koninklijk besluit betreffende de voorwaarden voor het gebruik van de spoorweginfrastructuur d.d. 12 maart 2003, Belgisch Staatsblad van 14 maart 2003, derde editie, pp. 12536-12580, gewijzigd bij Koninklijk Besluit van 11 juni 2004, Belgisch Staatsblad van 15 juni 2004, p. 44415 - 44424; Ministerieel besluit ter uitvoering van artikel 100 van het koninklijk besluit van 12 maart 2003 betreffende de voorwaarden voor het gebruik van de spoorweginfrastructuur, Belgisch Staatsblad van 12 juni 2003, editie 2,blz. 31811; Koninklijk besluit van 17 november 2003 houdende de uitvoering van de hoofdstukken III, V en VI van het koninklijk besluit van 12 maart 2003 betreffende de voorwaarden voor het gebruik van de spoorweginfrastructuur, Belgisch Staatsblad van 2 december 2003, p. 57466 - 57478; Koninklijk besluit van 7 september 2003 tot toekenning van de hoedanigheid van officier van gerechtelijke politie aan ambtenaren en agenten van het Bestuur dat voor het spoorvervoer bevoegd is, Belgisch staatsblad van 2 oktober 2003, p. 48268 - 48270; Bijwerking van 15 september 2003 van de inventaris van de reglementen bedoeld in de artikelen 4 en 6 van het koninklijk besluit van 12 maart 2003 betreffende de voorwaarden voor het gebruik van de spoorweginfrastructuur tot uitvoering van de richtlijnen 2001/12/EG, 2001/13/EG en 2001/14/EG van 26 februari 2001, Belgisch Staatsblad van 15 december 2003, p. 59151; Ministerieel besluit van 17 februari 2004 houdende goedkeuring van de netverklaring, Belgisch Staatsblad van 27 februari 2004, Ed. 3, p. 11392. De netverklaring is gepubliceerd door de Spoordienst en beschikbaar in NL en FR op: http://www.railaccess.be; Koninklijk besluit van 14 juni 2004 tot hervorming van de beheersstructuren van de spoorweginfrastructuur, Belgisch staatsblad van 24 juni 2004, p. 51791 - 51801; Koninklijk besluit van 19 oktober 2004 houdende sommige maatregelen voor de reorganisatie van de Nationale Maatschappij der Belgische Spoorwegen, Belgisch staatsblad van 20 oktober 2004, p. 72961 - 72977; Koninklijk besluit van 19 oktober 2004 tot regeling van de werking van het Fonds voor Spoorweginfrastructuur, Belgisch staatsblad van 20 oktober 2004, p. 72990 - 72992; Koninklijk besluit van 19 oktober 2004 tot vaststelling van de voorwaarden van onderhoud en beheer door Infrabel van de spoorweginfrastructuur in het bezit van het Fonds voor Spoorweginfrastructuur, Belgisch staatsblad van 20 oktober 2004, p. 72992 - 73005; Koninklijk besluit van 19 oktober 2004 tot vaststelling van de statuten van Nieuwe NMBS, Belgisch staatsblad van 20 oktober 2004, p. 72977 - 72990; Koninklijk besluit van 25 oktober 2004 tot oprichting van de Dienst Regulering van het Spoorwegvervoer en tot vaststelling van zijn samenstelling en het statuut dat van toepassing is op zijn leden, Belgisch Staatsblad van 5 november 2004, p. 75096 - 75097 |

CZ | Yes | Act No. 266/1994 Coll., on rail systems, as amended by the Act No. 103/2004 Coll., which came into force on 1 May 2004, (promulgated in the volume No. 32/2004 Coll.). and has been promulgated as a full text and has been published under the No. 301/2004 Coll. (volume No. 98/2004 Coll.) – available in CS and EN Applicable legislation to the Act on rail systems. Act No. 77/2002 Coll., on Czech Railways, joint stock company, the Railway Infrastructure Administration, state organisation, the amendment to Act No. 266/1994 Coll., on rail systems, as last amended, and to Act No. 77/1997 Coll., on the state enterprise, as last amended by the Constitutional Court ruling, published under No. 83/2003, and as amended by Act. No. 179/2003 Coll. and Act No. 293/2004 Coll. - available in CS and EN. Applicable legislation to the Act on Czech Railways Decree of the Ministry of Transport No. 352/2004 Coll., on the interoperability of the trans-European rail systems, which has came into force on 1 July 2004, (promulgated in the volume No. 114/2004 Coll.) - available in CS only Act No. 22/1997 Coll., on the technical requirements for products and on amendments to some acts, as last amended – available in CS only Decree of the Ministry of Transport No. 351/2004 Coll., on the services supplied by the rail system operator to the railway undertaking, which has came into force on 1 July 2004, (promulgated in the volume No. 114/2004 Coll.) – available in CS only Web page of the Ministry of Transport with the list of applicable consolidated legislation: http://www.mdcr.cz/text/oblasti/legislat/zakvyh/legis-prehl-draha.rtf Web page of the Railway Infrastructure Administration, s.o. with the actual version of the Network statement CS and EN Web page of the Railway Authority: http://www.du-praha.cz |

CY | No | Cyprus does not have railways. Legislation will apply once railways will be build in Cyprus. |

DK | Yes | Lov om aendring af lov om jernbanevirkdomhed m.v. om den selvstaendige offentlige virksomhed DSB og om DSB S-tog A/S, lov om jernbanesikkerhed m.v. og lov om ekspropriationer under ministeriel for offentlige arbejder. ref: Lovforslag n° 100 af 04/12/2002 (Law on changes of the law on railway undertakings etc., law on the independent public undertaking DSB and DSB S-Tog A/S, law on railway safety, etc. law on the expropriation under the Ministry of Public Works), as adopted by the Danish Folketing on 12 March 2003, published in Folketinget 2002-03, nr. L100 |

DE | Yes | Drittes Gesetz zur Änderung eisenbahnrechtlicher Vorschriften, Vom 27. April 2005, Bundesgesetzblatt Jahrgang 2005 Teil I Nr. 24, ausgegeben zu Bonn am 29. April 2005. Verordnung zum Erlass und zur Änderung eisenbahnrechtlicher Vorschriften, vom 3. Juni 2005, Bundesgesetzblatt Jahrgang 2005, Teil I, Nr. 32, ausgegeben zu Bonn am 13. Juni 2005. |

EE | Yes | RAUDTEESEADUS, Vastu võetud 19. novembril 2003. a, RK, RTI, 17.12.2003, 79, 530; Raudteeinfrastruktuuri ja raudteeliikluse korralduse ning raudteeveeremi nõuetele vastavuse kontrollimise aruannete vormid. Majandus- ja kommunikatsiooniministri 24. märtsi 2004. a määrus nr 49, MKM, RTL, 29.03.2004, 30, 513; Raudtee-ettevõtja tulude ja kulude arvestuste esitamise kord ja tähtajad, Majandus- ja kommunikatsiooniministri 6. aprilli 2004. a määrus nr 63, MKM, RTL, 16.04.2004, 40, 665. Railways act and Explanatory Memorandum, available in EN. |

EL | Yes | Harmonisation of the Greek legislation with directives 91/440/EEC and 95/18/EC as amended by Directives 2001/12/EC and 2001/13/EC, respectively Directive 2001/14/EC on the development of the community's railways; the licensing of railway undertaking and capacity allocation, capacity charging and safety certification as well as the suppression of presidential decrees 324/1996, 76/1998 et 180/1998, published in the Greek Official Journal of 7 March 2005 (Provisional English translation). |

ES | Yes | Ley 39/2003 de 17 noviembre 2003 del Sector Ferroviario, BOE 276, p. 40532; Real Decreto 2387/2004, de 30 de diciembre, por el que se aprueba el Reglamento del Sector Ferroviario, BOE 315, 31-12-2004, p. 42719; REAL DECRETO 2395/2004, de 30 de diciembre, por el que se aprueba el Estatuto de la entidad pública empresarial Administrador de Infraestructuras Ferroviarias, BOE 315, 31-12-2004, p. 42797; REAL DECRETO 2396/2004, de 30 de diciembre, por el que se aprueba el Estatuto de la entidad pública empresarial Renfe-Operadora, BOE 315, 31-12-2004, p. 42785; ORDEN FOM/897/2005, de 7 de abril, relativa a la declaración sobre la red y al procedimiento de adjudicación de capacidad de infraestructura ferroviaria. |

FR | Yes | Décret n° 2003-194 du 7 mars 2003 relatif à l’utilisation du réseau ferré national, JO n° 57 du 8 mars 2003 page 4063. Arrêté du 6 mai 2003 fixant les modalités de délivrance, de suspension temporaire et de retrait des licences d'entreprises ferroviaires, JO n° 114 du 17 mai 2003, p. 8497; et Arrêté du 6 mai 2003 fixant les modalités de fonctionnement de la mission de contrôle des activités ferroviaires, JO n° 114 du 17 mai 2003, p. 8496. |

IE | Yes | European Communities (Access to Railway Infrastructure) Regulations 2003, Statutory Instruments 536/2003; European Communities (Licensing of Railway Undertakings) Regulations 2003, Statutory Instruments 537/2003, signed on 3 November 2003. Statutory Instruments (S.I.) 2003. European Communities (Allocation of Railway Infrastructure Capacity and the levying of charges for the use of Railway Infrastructure and Safety Certification) Regulations, 643/2004, July 2004, Statutory Instruments (S.I.) 2004. |

IT | Yes | Decreto legislative 8 luglio 2003, n. 188. Attuazione delle direttive 2001/12/CE, 2001/13/CE e 2001/14/CE in materia ferroviaria. Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana, 24 luglio 2003. The Network Statement 2003 (only available in Italian) has been published on the site of the Italian infrastructure manager RFI. |

IE | Yes | European Communities (Interoperability of the Trans-European High-Speed Rail System) Regulations 2002, ref: S.I. nl. 118 of 2002, 28 March 2002. |

IT | Yes | Decreto legislativo 24 maggio 2001, no. 299, ref: GURI di 21/7/2001 |

LU | No | Règlement grand-ducal du 24 octobre 2003 sur les conditions de délivrance et de validité des certificats de sécurité pour les entreprises ferroviaires, Memorial A, no. 160 du 4 novembre 2003, p. 3172; Règlement grand-ducal du 24 octobre 2003 sur les conditions de délivrance et de validité des licences des entreprises ferroviaires, Memorial A, no. 160 du 4 novembre 2003, p. 3174. Directive 2001/14 has been implemented with a Grand Duchy Regulation of 31 March 2003, defining the application modalities for charges to be levied for the use of the railway infrastructure in Luxemburg, published in the Official Journal of the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg, A series, no. 45, p. 704-708. |

LV | Yes | Dzelzceļa likums, Latvijas Vēstnesis, 102/105, 19/4/1998; Ministru kabineta 1998.gada 29.decembra noteikumi nr.489 "Dzelzceļa infrastruktūras (sliežu ceļu) valsts reģistrācijas un uzskaites kārtība", Latvijas Vēstnesis, 388/399, 30/12/1998; Ministru kabineta 1999.gada 15.jūnija noteikumi nr.211 "Dzelzceļa tehniskās inspekcijas nolikums", Latvijas Vēstnesis, 198/199, 18/6/1999; Ministru kabineta 1999.gada 23. marta noteikumi Nr. 111 "Dzelzceļa administrācijas nolikums", Latvijas Vēstnesis, Latvijas Vēstnesis, 26/3/1999. |

LT | Yes | Lietuvos Respublikos susisiekimo ministro 2003 m. sausio 21 d. įsakymas Nr. 3-36 Dėl Lietuvos Respublikos susisiekimo ministerijos 1996 m. spalio 30 d. įsakymo Nr. 330 „Dėl valstybinės geležinkelio inspekcijos prie susisiekimo ministerijos nuostatų patvirtinimo“ pakeitimo, Valstybės žinios, 12, 31/1/2003; Lietuvos Respublikos geležinkelių eismo saugos įstatymas Nr. IX-1905, Valstybės žinios, 4, 7/1/2004; Geležinkelio transporto kodekso 3, 14, 19, 20, 22, 32, 33, 34, 35, 38, 51, 57, 58, 62, 63, 64, 65, 68, 69 straipsnių pakeitimo ir papildymo ĮSTATYMAS Nr. IX-1504, Valstybės žinios, 74, 24/7/2002; Lietuvos Respublikos Geležinkelio transporto kodeksas Nr. I-1361, Valstybės žinios, 59, 22/6/2996; Lietuvos Respublikos susisiekimo ministro 2002 m. gegužės 16 d. įsakymas Nr. 3-223 Dėl Lietuvos Respublikos susisiekimo ministerijos 1996 m. spalio 30 d. įsakymo Nr. 330 „Dėl Valstybinės geležinkelių inspekcijos nuostatų“ dalinio pakeitimo, Valstybės žinios, 52, 24/5/2002; Lietuvos Respublikos geležinkelių transporto sektoriaus reformos įstatymas Nr. IX-2104, Valstybės žinios, 61, 27/4/2004; Lietuvos Respublikos geležinkelių transporto kodekso patvirtinimo, įsigaliojimo ir taikymo įstatymas Nr. IX-2152, Valstybės žinios, 72, 30/4/2004. Lietuvos Respublikos susisiekimo ministerijos įsakymas Nr. 20 Dėl geležinkelio transporto ūkinės veiklos licencijavimo tvarkos, Valstybės žinios, 10, 30/1/1998. Lietuvos Respublikos geležinkelių eismo saugos įstatymas Nr. IX-1905, Valstybės žinios, 4, 7/1/2004. Lietuvos Respublikos Transporto veiklos pagrindų įstatymas Nr. IX-747 (nauja redakcija), Valstybės žinios, 29, 20/3/2002. Lietuvos Respublikos susisiekimo ministro 2003 m. sausio 23 d. įsakymas Nr. 3-37 „Dėl geležinkelio įmonių ir geležinkelio valdytojo saugos sertifikavimo taisyklių patvirtinimo“, Valstybės žinios, 13, 5/2/2003. |

HU | Yes | 1993. évi XCV. törvény a vasútról, Magyar Közlöny, 165, 12/11/1993, 10361-10366; A gazdasági és közlekedési miniszter 67/2003. (X. 21.) GKM rendelete az országos közforgalmú vasúti pálya kapacitásának elosztásáról, Magyar Közlöny, 121, 21/10/2003, 9014-9018; 2001. évi CIX. törvény a közlekedéssel összefüggő egyes törvények módosításáról, Magyar Közlöny, 153, 11455-11461; A gazdasági és közlekedési miniszter, valamint a pénzügyminiszter 66/2003. (X. 21.) GKM—PM együttes rendelete a vasúti pályahasználati díjról és képzésének elveirõl, Magyar Közlöny, 121, 21/10/2003, 9011-9014; A gazdasági és közlekedési miniszter 48/2004. (IV. 22.) GKM rendelete az országos közforgalmú vasúti pálya kapacitásának elosztásáról szóló 67/2003. (X. 21.) GKM rendelet és a nagysebességû vasúti rendszerek kölcsönös átjárhatóságáról szóló 9/2002. (II. 6.) KöViM rendelet módosításáról, Magyar Közlöny, 2004/52, 4916-4917; A gazdasági és közlekedési miniszter 51/2004. (IV. 22.) GKM rendelete a vasútbiztonsági tanúsítványról, Magyar Közlöny, 2004/52, 4926-4928; A gazdasági és közlekedési miniszter, valamint a pénzügyminiszter 72/2004. (IV. 28.) GKM—PM együttes rendelete a vasúti pályahasználati díjról és képzésének elveirõl szóló 66/2003. (X. 21.) GKM—PM együttes rendelet módosításáról, Magyar Közlöny, 2004/58, 6073-6074; .A közlekedési és vízügyi miniszter 15/2002. (II. 27.) KöViM rendelete a vasútvállalatok mûködésének engedélyezésérõl, Magyar Közlöny, 27, 27/2/2002, 1679-1682. Act XCV of 1993 on the Railway (Promulgated: 12 November 1993; Joint Decree 66/2003 (X. 21.) GKM-PM of the Minister of Economy and Transport and the Minister of Finance on the levying of charges for the use of railway tracks and the establishment principles of such charges; Decree 67/2003 (X. 21.) GKM of the Minister of Economy and Transport on the allocation of the national public railway track capacity. |

MT | No | Malta does not have railways. Legislation will apply once railways will be built in Malta. |

NL | Yes | Wet van 23 april 2003, houdende nieuwe algemene regels over de aanleg, het beheer, de toegankelijkheid en het gebruik van spoorwegen alsmede over het verkeer over spoorwegen (Spoorwegwet), Staatsblad 2003, no. 264. The Network Statement 2005 has been published by ProRail, the Dutch Infrastructure Manager. Regeling keuring spoorvoertuigen (Rules examination of railway carriages); Regeling hoofdspoorweginfrastructure (Rules main railway infrastructure); Regeling spoorwegpersoneel (Rules railway staff); Regeling spoorverkeer (Rules railway traffic); Regeling eisen keuringsinstanties Spoorwegwet (Rules requirements railway certification institutes railway act); Regeling veiligheidsattest hoofdspoorwegen (Rules safety certificate main railway network); Aanwijzing spoorwegen als locaalspoorweg (Determination railways as local railways), Staatscourant 2004, no. 248; Besluit van 3 december 2004, houdende keuring en certificering van spoorvoertuigen (Besluit keuring spoorvoertuigen), Staatsblad 2004, no. 660 (Decision on the approval and certification of railway rolling stock); Besluit van 3 december 2004, houdende nadere regels over de bedrijfsvergunning en het veiligheidsattest voor spoorwegondernemingen die gebruikmaken van hoofdspoorwegen (Besluit bedrijfsvergunning en veiligheidsattest hoofdspoorwegen), Staatsblad 2004, no. 661 (Decision on the licence and the safety certificate for railway undertakings using the main railway network); Besluit van 3 december 2004, houdende regels met betrekking tot het veilig en ongestoord gebruik van hoofdspoorwegen (Besluit spoorverkeer), Staatsblad 2004, no. 662 (Decision on rules for the safe and undisturbed use of the main rail network); Besluit van 3 december 2004, houdende aanpassing van een aantal algemene maatregelen van bestuur in verband met de invoering van de Spoorwegwet, Staatsblad 2004, no. 663 (Decision modifying a number of implementation decisions in relation to the implementation of the Railways Act); Besluit van 3 december 2004, houdende vaststelling van voorschriften met betrekking tot de bekwaamheid en geschiktheid van spoorwegpersoneel (Besluit spoorwegpersoneel), Staatsblad 2004, no. 664 (Decision on requirements in relation to the competence and aptitude of railway staff); Besluit van 3 december 2004, houdende bepalingen met betrekking tot de spoorweginfrastructuur (Besluit infrastructuur), Staatsblad 2004, no. 665 (Decision on the railway infrastructure); Aanpassingsbesluit Concessiewet, Staatsblad 2004, no. 666 (Decision amending Concession Act); Besluit van 3 december 2004, houdende regels over de verdeling van de capaciteit van de hoofdspoorweg-infrastructuur (Besluit capaciteitsverdeling hoofdspoorweginfrastructuur), Staatsblad 2004, no. 667 (Decision on the allocation of capacity on the main railway infrastructure); Besluit van 20 december 2004, houdende aanwijzing van hoofdspoorwegen, alsmede houdende intrekking van enkele op grond de Locaalspoor- en Tramwegwet genomen besluiten (Besluit aanwijzing hoofdspoorwegen), Staatsblad 2004, no. 722 (Decision on the determination of the main railway network); Koninklijk besluit tot inwerkingtreding van de Spoorwegwet, Staatsblad 2004, no. 723 (Royal decree allowing the entry into force of the Railway Act); Koninklijk besluit tot inwerkingtreding van de Concessiewet personenvervoer per trein, Staatsblad 2004, no. 740 (Royal decree allowing the entry into force of the Concession Act Passenger Transport by train); Besluit van 20 december 2004, houdende vaststelling van het tijdstip van inwerkingtreding van bepalingen van de Spoorwegwet (Staatsblad 2003, no. 264) en van daarmee samenhangende regelgeving, alsmede houdende intrekking van een aantal wettelijke voorschriften, Staatsblad 2004, no. 741 (Decision on the entry into force of the Railways Act 2003 as well as implementation measures); Koninklijk besluit hoofdrailnet, Staatsblad 2004, no. 742 (Royal decree Main Rail Network). |

AT | Yes | Schienenverkehrsmarkt-Regulierungsgesetz, BGBl. Nr. 166/1999 vom 19. August 1999, s. 1305; Bundesbahnstrukturgesetz 2003, BGBl. Nr. 138/2003 vom 30. Dezember 2003, s. 1883. Bundesgesetz, mit dem das Eisenbahngesetz 1957 geändert wird, BGBl. Nr. 38/2004 vom 30. April 2004, s. 1. |

PL | Yes | Ustawa z dnia 19 listopada 1999 r.- Prawo działalności gospodarczej, 19/11/1999, Dziennik Ustaw, 17/12/1999; Ustawa z dnia 8 września 2000 r. o komercjalizacji, restrukturyzacji i prywatyzacji przedsiębiorstwa państwowego "Polskie Koleje Państwowe", 8/9/2000, Dziennik Ustaw, 2000/84/948, 12/10/2002; Ustawa z 29 września 1994 o rachunkowości, 29/4/2992, Dziennik Ustaw, 2002/76/694, 17/6/2002; Ustawa z dnia 26 listopada 1998 r. o finansach publicznych, 26/11/1998, Dziennik Ustaw, 2003/15/148, 3/2/2003; Ustawa z dnia 20 kwietnia 2004 r. o zmianie ustawy o transporcie kolejowym, 20/4/2004; Dziennik Ustaw, 2004/92/883, 30/4/2004; Ustawa z dnia 28 marca 2003 o transporcie kolejowym, 28/3/2003, Dziennik Ustaw, 2003/86/789, 17/05/2003; Ustawa z dnia 27 lipca 2002 r. o warunkach dopuszczalności i nadzorowaniu pomocy publicznej dla przedsiębiorców, 27/7/2002, Dziennik Ustaw, 2002/141/1177, 5/09/2002; Ustawa z dnia 20 kwietnia 2004 r. o zmianie i uchyleniu niektórych ustaw w związku z uzyskaniem przez Rzeczpospolitą Polską członkostwa w Unii Europejskiej, 20/4/2004, Dziennik Ustaw, 2004/96/959, 30/04/2004; Ustawa z dnia 16 kwietnia 1993 r. o zwalczaniu nieuczciwej konkurencji (tekst jednolity), 16/3/2000, Dziennik Ustaw, 1/09/2003; Ustawa z dnia 15 grudnia 2000r. o ochronie konkurencji i konsumentów, 15/12/2000, Dziennik Ustaw, 2004/86, 17/05/2003; Ustawa z dnia 30 sierpnia 2002 r. Prawo o postępowaniu przed sądami administracyjnymi, 30/8/2002, Dziennik Ustaw, 2002/153/1270, 20/09/2002; Rozporządzenie Ministra Infrastruktury z dnia 28 czerwca 2003 r. w sprawie trybu składania i rozpatrywania wniosków o udzielenie licencji na prowadzenie działalności gospodarczej polegającej na wykonywaniu przewozów kolejowych osób lub rzeczy albo na udostępnianiu pojazdów trakcyjnych oraz wzoru licencji, 28/6/2003, Dziennik Ustaw, 2003/137/1309, 6/08/2003; Ustawa z dnia 26.06.1974 r. - Kodeks pracy, 26/6/1974, Dziennik Ustaw, 16/02/1998 (part A; part B); Ustawa z dnia 14 czerwca 1960 r. - Kodeks postępowania administracyjnego, 14/6/1960, Dziennik Ustaw, 17/11/2000; Rozporządzenie Ministra Infrastruktury z dnia 23 września 2003 r. w sprawie świadectw bezpieczeństwa, 23/9/2003, Dziennik Ustaw, 2003/176/1719, 10/10/2003. |

PT | Yes | Decreto-Lei no. 270/2003: Define as condições de prestação dos serviços de transporte ferroviário por caminho de ferro e de gestão da infra-estrutura ferroviária, transpondo para a ordem jurídica nacional as Directivas n.os 2001/12/CE, 2001/13/CE e 2001/14/CE, do Parlamento Europeu, de 26 de Fevereiro, published in the Diáro da República, I-A Série, No. 250, 28 October 2003. The Network Statement 2004 has been published by REFER, the Infrastructure Manager in Portugal. |

FI | Yes | Rautatielaki 198/2003, 7/032003; Valtioneuvoston asetus rautatieliikenteen harjoittajille tarjottavista palveluista (206/2003), 13/03/2003; Valtioneuvoston asetus rautatieliikenteen aikataulukaudesta ja ratakapasiteetin hakemisesta (207/2003), 13/03/2003. Järnvägslag 198/2003, 7 March 2003, Statsrådets förordning om tjänster som skall tillhandahållas järnvägsoperatörer (206/2003), 13/03/2003; Statsrådets förordning om tågplaneperioder och ansökan om bankapaciteit (207/2003), 13/03/2003. Railway Act 198/2003, 7/03/2003; Government decree 206/2003 on services to be provided to rail operators, 13/03/2003; Government decree 207/2003 on railway scheduling periods and applications for track capacity, 13/03/2003. |

SI | Yes | Zakon o preoblikovanju in privatizaciji javnega podjetja Slovenske železnice, d.d.23/2/2003, Uradni list RS, 26/2003, 13/03/2003, p. 3220-3222; Uredba o dodeljevanju vlakovnih poti in uporabnini na javni železniški infrastrukturi, d.d. 29/3/2001, Uradni list RS, 26/2001, 12/04/2001, p. 2777-2781; Uredba o nadomestilu dela stroškov za prevoze, raziskave in naložbe prevoznikom, ki opravljajo določene prevozne storitve v železniškem prometu, d.d. 9/11/2000, Uradni list RS, 108/2000, 24/11/2000, p. 11250-11252; Zakon o železniškem prometu - uradno prečiščeno besedilo, d.d. 15/7/2003, Uradni list RS, 83/2003, 22/08/2003, p. 12180-12194; Uredba o postopku za ugotavljanje izpolnjevanja pogojev za izdajo licence za opravljanje prevoznih storitev v železniškem prometu, njen odvzem ali podaljšanje in postopek obveščanja tujih licenčnih organov, d.d. 19/4/2001, Uradni list RS, 34/2001, 10/05/2001, p. 3960-3962; Uredba o kriterijih za ugotavljanje izpolnjevanja pogojev za pridobitev varnostnega spričevala in o postopku za izdajo varnostnega spričevala, d.d. 19/1/2001,Uradni list RS, 4/2001, 19/01/2001, p. 462-467; Uredba o spremembi uredbe o dodeljevanju vlakovnih poti in uporabnini na javni železniški infrastrukturi,d.d. 8/11/2001, Uradni list RS, 91/2001, 16/11/2001, p. 8983; Zakon o spremembah in dopolnitvah zakona o železniškem prometu, d.d. 29/11/2002, Uradni list RS, 110/2002, 18/12/2002, p. 13164-13170; Zakon o železniškem prometu, d.d. 2/11/1999, Uradni list RS, 92/1999, 12/11/1999, p. 13631-13640; |

SK | Yes | ZÁKON 164/1996, NÁRODNEJ RADY SLOVENSKEJ REPUBLIKY, zo 17. mája 1996 o dráhach a o zmene zákona č. 455/1991 Zb. o .ivnostenskom podnikaní (.ivnostenský zákon) v znení neskor.ích predpisov (Provisional English translation); ZÁKON 58/1997, zo 6. februára 1997, ktorým sa mení a dopĺňa zákon č. 135/1961 Zb. o pozemných komunikáciách (cestný zákon) v znení neskor.ích predpisov, zákon Národnej rady Slovenskej republiky č. 164/1996 Z. z. o dráhach a o zmene zákona č. 455/1991 Zb. o.ivnostenskom podnikaní (.ivnostenský zákon) v znení neskor.ích predpisov, zákon Národnej rady Slovenskej republiky č. 168/1996 Z. z. o cestnej doprave a zákon Národnej rady Slovenskej republiky č. 222/1996 Z. z. o organizácii miestnej .tátnej správy a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov; ZÁKON 260/2001, zo 14. júna 2001, ktorým sa mení a dopåòa zákon Národnej rady Slovenskej republiky è. 164/1996 Z. z. o dráhach a o zmene zákona è. 455/1991 Zb. o živnostenskom podnikaní (živnostenský zákon) v znení neskorších predpisov v znení zákona è. 58/1997 Z. z.; ZÁKON 416/2001, z 20. septembra 2001 o prechode niektorých pôsobností z orgánov štátnej správy na obce a na vyššie územné celky; ZÁKON 725/2004, z 2. decembra 2004 o podmienkach prevádzky vozidiel v premávke na pozemných komunikáciách a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov; ZÁKON 109/2005, z 9. februára 2005, ktorým sa mení a dopĺňa zákon Národnej rady Slovenskej republiky č. 164/1996 Z. z. o dráhach a o zmene zákona č. 455/1991 Zb. o živnostenskom podnikaní (živnostenský zákon) v znení neskorších predpisov v znení neskorších predpisov a o zmene zákona č. 725/2004 Z. z. o podmienkach prevádzky vozidiel v premávke na pozemných komunikáciách a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov (Provisional English translation). |

SE | Yes | Järnvägslag (2004:519) (Railway Act) of 3 June 2004; Järnvägsförordning (2004:526) (Railway Regulation) of 3 June 2004; Förordning (2004:527) med instruktion för Järnvägsstyrelsen (Regulation with instructions for the Rail Agency) of 3 June 2006; Lag (1992:1119) om teknisk kontroll (Act on technical control)of 3 December 1992; Förordning (2005:894) om teknisk kontroll (on technical control )of 1 December 2005. |

UK | Yes | The Railways Infrastructure (Access and Management) Regulations 2005, Statutory Instruments 2005, No. 3049 and The Railway (Licensing of Railway Undertakings) Regulations 2005, Statutory Instruments 2005 No. 3050. |

5. OVERVIEW OF THE COURT RULINGS IN RELATION TO THE INFRASTRUCTURE PACKAGE DIRECTIVES:

C-2003/550 : Commission vs. Greece: non-notification implementation measures for Directives 2001/12, 2001/13 and 2001/14, Ruling of 4 December 2004;

C-2003/482 : Commission vs. Ireland: non-notification implementation measures for Directives 2001/12, 2001/13 and 2001/14, Ruling of 18 November 2004;

C-2003/483 : Commission vs. the United Kingdom: non-notification implementation measures for Directives 2001/12, 2001/13 and 2001/14, Ruling of 7 October 2004;

C-2003/477 : Commission vs. Germany: non-notification implementation measures for Directives 2001/12, 2001/13 and 2001/14, Ruling of 21 October 2004;

C-2003/481 : Commission vs. Luxemburg: non-notification implementation measures for Directives 2001/12 and 2001/14, Ruling of 30 September 2004.

ANNEX 2

Rail Transport in the EU: Open Access Rights in the Member States by 1 February 2006

The table below summarises information about open access rights for rail transport services in Member States based on information (e.g. notifications from Member States, studies, etc.) that the Commission had obtained as of 1 February 2006.

Country | Open access to all EU railway undertakings for international rail freight services (on TERFN) Required by “1st EU rail package” since 15 March 2003 and 1 May 2004 for the New Member States. | Open access to all EU railway undertakings for all kinds of rail freight services Required by “2nd EU rail package” from January 2007 onward | Open access to domestic railway undertakings for rail freight services Based on national legislation | Open access to domestic undertakings for rail passenger services (to be distinguished from access for public service provision) Based on national legislation |

BE | YES since March 2003 | YES from January 2007 | NO | NO |

CZ | YES since May 2004 | YES since May 2004 | YES since 2000 | YES since 2000 |

DK | YES since 2003 | YES from January 2007 | YES since January 1999 | YES since January 1999 |

DE | YES since January 2006 | YES from January 2007 | YES since 1994 | YES since 1994 |

EE | YES since April 2004 | YES from January 2007 | YES since 1999 | YES since 1999 |

EL | YES since May 2005 | NO | NO | NO |

ES | YES since January 2005 | YES from January 2007 | YES since January 2005 | NO |

FR | YES since March 2003 | YES from April 2006 | NO | NO |

IE | YES since November 2003 | YES from January 2007 | NO | NO |

IT | YES since March 2003 | YES since 2000[5] | YES since 2000 | YES since 2000 |

LV | YES since May 2004 | NO | YES since 1998 | YES since 1998 |

LT | YES since May 2004 | NO | YES since 1996 | YES since 1996 |

LU | YES since March 2003 | YES from January 2007 | NO | NO |

HU | YES since May 2004[6] | YES from January 2007 | YES since May 2004 | NO |

NL | YES since January 2005 | YES since January 2005 | YES since 1998 | NO |

AT | YES since May 2004 | YES from January 2007 | YES since 1998 | YES since 1998 |

PL | YES since May 2004[7] | YES from January 2007 | YES since June 2003 | YES since June 2003 |

PT | YES since November 2003 | NO | YES since June 2003 | NO |

SI | YES since May 2004 | NO | YES since 2003 | YES since 2003 |

SK | YES since January 2006 | YES from January 2007 | YES since January 1994 | YES since January 1994 |

FI | YES since March 2003 | NO | NO | NO |

SE | YES since July 2004 | YES since January 2006[8] | YES since 1996 | NO |

UK | YES since November 2005 | YES from January 2007 | YES since 1994 | YES since 1994 |

ANNEX 3

Observations and Comments made by the Stakeholders on the Implementation of the Infrastructure Package

Introduction

This annex aims to give an overview on the observations of the actors, expressed mainly by their organisations at European level concerning the reform of rail freight market and in particular the implementation of first railway package. This overview has been prepared by the Commission’s services, under their own responsibility. The precise comments of the organisations may be found at the Commission’s dedicated website[9]: Comments and observations are included from the Community of European Railway and Infrastructure Companies (CER), the European Rail Freight Association (ERFA), the Association of European Rail Infrastructure Managers (EIM), the European Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF) and the European Rail Freight Customers Platform (ERFCP).

These organisations represent different actors of the rail market with diverging and sometimes conflicting interests and they foster different expectations from the market opening process. The CER for example mainly represents the historical, integrated railway undertakings, the infrastructure managers, while ERFA is an association of the new entrant freight operators. The EIM represents the infrastructure managers, which are institutionally separated from railway undertakings. The ETF, as a representative of the trade unions, particularly focuses on the socio-economic aspects of the rail reform, such as the development of employment. Within each organisation there can be conflicting interests. An incumbent that wants to extend its activities in another Member State can be faced with an incumbent, member of the same organisation, which has now become a competitor on a particular market segment with conflicting interests.

In order to gather information on the stakeholders’ views, the European Commission organised several meetings on the railway reform process and the rail market developments. These meetings have been held within the framework of the regulatory and advisory committees as foreseen by Directives 2001/12/EC and 2001/14/EC. Furthermore, documents and position papers on the railway reform in the EU issued by stakeholders provided a valuable input to the evaluation of the impact of the implementation of the directives. Finally, the Commission managed several studies to provide a stakeholder analysis of different aspects of the railway reform process, which yielded a wealth of information, such as the Railimplement[10] report.

Progress achieved

A consensus on the objectives of the railway reform emerges in so far as all stakeholders agree on the necessity of maintaining and increasing the market share of rail transport in Europe. However, this consensus is hard to identify when it comes to the means to achieve this objective. Stakeholders expressed the view that in general the reforms initiated by the first railway package are far reaching, positive and necessary to achieve the aims of the EU rail policy. CER has stated the positive effect of rail reform in terms of increasing productivity, as well.

However, it has also been emphasized by the stakeholders that the process is far from complete and much needs to be done in the future to achieve the objectives set out by the directives of the infrastructure package and the Commission’s policy papers.

Although de jure implementation of the first railway package has occurred in most of the Member States, stakeholders consider that much remains to be done in several countries.

The institutional set-up of the rail sector in some Member States has been criticised. ERFA, EIM and ERFCP have underlined that full independence of essential functions of the infrastructure managers is not guaranteed in some Member States even where the accounts or some essential functions are separated from the historical railway undertakings. However, CER believes that no clear view emerges on what could be considered the ‘best’ model for the organisation of the railway undertakings and infrastructure managers (integrated or separated). ERFA, EIM and ERFCP have also highlighted the lack of independence and the shortage of financial means and staffing of the Regulatory Bodies as an obstacle to the functioning of the market.

New operators have specifically expressed their concern about national procedures for licensing and safety certification as being sometimes non-transparent, arbitrary, too complex, lengthy and expensive, which constitute a serious barrier to market entry. In addition, due to different implementation of the directives of the first railway package, these procedures are not harmonised between the Member States thus making cross-border activities complicated and difficult. Moreover, stakeholders have mentioned that traditional state railways concluded agreements on acceptance of rolling stock for cross-border traffic, which do not include the new operators. Consequently, the latter are faced with an additional administrative burden that raises their costs.

Infrastructure charging and the financial situation of rail companies

Infrastructure charging has been a common concern to all stakeholders. One of the major problems is the huge variance in the methods used to calculate these charges. As a consequence of this, charges differ significantly between Member States. In general, it can be said that while charges are at relatively low level in the old Member States, they are very high in the new Members from Central and Eastern Europe. This results in a major disadvantage for rail transport competing with other transport modes. Furthermore, CER has highlighted that track access charges do not cover the costs of asset replacement, despite the high level of charges in CEEC.

The main concern of the new operators is a discriminatory and unclear charging policy, favoured by integrated rail companies that can influence the actual allocation and charging procedures.

As regards inter-modal competition, the implementation of the principle of internalisation of external costs in charging schemes of other transport modes, in particular roads, has been supported by the stakeholders since it could provide economic advantage for rail freight transport and possible increase its attractiveness for the customers.

The financial situation of rail companies is diverse in Europe. Historic debts of state railways have been treated differently across Europe. The CER has expressed its concern about the growing debt of state railways of Central-Eastern Europe, in particular. Since this problem is related to state owned companies, Member States should continue to comply with the provisions on debt restructuring as set out in the amended directive 91/440/EC.

Market Access

Discriminatory access to essential facilities such as marshalling yards, fuelling and terminals has been a major concern of the new entrant rail operators. It is due to the fact that incumbents used their influential position as facility owner or operator to decide upon the parties and the conditions of the access. This has caused a serious market entry barrier and prevented new operators from providing a high-quality service to their customers.

ERFA, EIM and ERFCP have emphasized that new entrants face severe difficulties in entering and operating in the market because incumbents still have a strong control of the market, which is aimed at keeping a large market share.

New operators have the impression that the public authorities in some countries were not able or willing to provide appropriate assistance to the new operators since many incumbents are still publicly owned. Within this context, the important role of a strong market regulator independent from the state was stressed by the new operators.

CER has emphasized that increasing the rail share of the freight market and the service quality requires significant investments in the modernisation of the network in both Western and Central Eastern Europe. In the latter, the length of infrastructure should be reduced and substantially modernised. In Western Europe, investments in the renewal of the network are necessary to remove significant bottlenecks.

Employment and Working Conditions

Regarding the working conditions and employment, ETF has presented serious concerns about the considerable reduction in employment in the railway sector. ETF has stated that in the last 10 years railway employment significantly declined. According to its survey, 10 lost jobs are replaced by 1 only, new job. Female employment has been traditionally low in the rail sector (6% to 20 % in EU-15) while in the new member states this level is considerably higher (30% or even more). Redundancies in the new Member States have resulted in an over proportional reduction of the female labour force. According to ETF, employment reduction has resulted in extended working hours and overtime, as well as increasing stress for the railway staff in many parts of the railway sector.

ETF has also drawn attention to differences in salaries that are perceived between the old work contracts and the new contracts for similar activities. The change in contract has created competition on the basis of staff costs and deteriorated working conditions, which is counter productive for staff motivation and quality of services. It should be noted however that these findings are based mainly on individual cases rather than on extensive and systematic research. Comparative studies or data on working conditions in the railway sector are not available at the EU level. Some stakeholders have expressed fears that the emergence of new railway undertakings might have a negative impact on wage levels and on compliance with national legislation in relation to working conditions. ERFA observed that the new railway undertakings are faced with real competition for train drivers, thus forcing them to offer wages and working conditions that are competitive and attractive compared to the pay levels available with the incumbents.

In general, trade unions and employers in the rail sector agree on the need to co-operate to strengthen the development of railways, however, not all of them support the liberalisation process of the rail market. They aim to maintain fair working conditions and reciprocity in the sector.

The social dialogue in the railway sector set up at European level contributes significantly to the integration of European railways. In this respect, ETF considers that the agreement between CER and ETF on certain aspects of working conditions of mobile workers is an encouraging example. ERFA, however, deplores not being recognised yet as a member of the Social Dialogue Committee; it declared to endeavour providing the necessary evidence to obtain access to this committee.

In summary, the great majority of stakeholders support the implementation and enforcement of the first railway package. According to them, it provides a good framework to integrate the rail freight market and to increase the market share of rail freight among the transport modes. Reform is beneficial and needs to be implemented forcefully so that significant results in the market development could be achieved in medium to long term. Representatives of private market actors emphasize the need for more competition on the market that is often restricted by incumbents. Member States need to enforce their own transport policy so that fair and non-discriminative competition is ensured on the rail market for all actors.

ANNEX 4

Separation of Accounts

The separation of accounts, which is the prerequisite for determining the costs of transport activities and of infrastructure management activities, for ensuring an effective infrastructure charging system and for ruling out cross-subsidisation, depends first and foremost on the legal structure chosen by the Member States for their national railway undertaking, which this issue chiefly concerns. If the structure chosen is based on individual entities which are either completely separate or are brought together in a holding company, accounts are drawn up for each individual legal entity. This is basically the case for many national undertakings in the Member States. However, the structural changes that have been made are too recent (eg in Belgium, Poland and Spain) for it to be possible to identify the financial outturn for each type of activity precisely. Some Member States (eg the Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Latvia and Slovenia) are either in the throes of structural change or are still at the planning stage. A study has been carried out relating to the accounts published in 2005. Further information on this matter can be found below. The Commission will endeavour to ensure that the accounts comply fully with the requirements of Directive 2001/12/EC and will not hesitate to initiate infringement procedures should such a step prove necessary.

The principle of separation the accounts of the infrastructure manager and railway undertakings was introduced in the railway legislation as early as in 1991. Directive 91/440/EEC, as adopted in 1991 already provided for the separation of accounts in its articles 4-6. Article 4 provided that railway undertakings should have independent status, which required that assets, budgets and accounts were separate from those of the State. Furthermore, Article 6 provided that the accounts for business relating to transport services and those for business relating to the management of railway infrastructure were kept separate. Aid paid to one of these two areas of activity may not be transferred to the other.

Directive 2001/12/EC amending the above mentioned Directive 91/440/EEC has gone further by requiring that separate profit and loss accounts and balance sheets are kept and published for business relating to transport services of railway undertakings as well as for business relating to the management of railway infrastructure. Public funds paid to one of these two areas of activity may not be transferred to the other.

Moreover, it has introduced a new paragraph in Article 9 that ensures that railway undertakings keep and publish profit and loss and either balance sheets or annual statement of assets and liabilities for business relating to rail freight transport services. Funds paid for activities relating to passenger transport services as public-service remits must be shown separately and may not be transferred to activities relating to other transport services or any other business.

The proper implementation of the principle of accounts separation has been of great importance in the process of restructuring of the railway sector. It aims to enhance the transparency of the financial management of railway undertakings. It concerns not only the separate accounting of different rail businesses but also the public funding provided for these businesses. In particular, the separation of funding for public service contracts and ensuing obligations (PSO funding) from all other forms of funding, as well as the prohibition of cross-subsidy between different rail businesses have major significance. The separation of accounts requires railway undertakings to have a clear and precise system to illustrate revenues and costs of railway undertakings and infrastructure managers. Moreover, it helps ensure that railway undertakings provide efficient and appropriate services at the lowest possible cost for the quality of service required in the railway market as required by Article 5 of Directive 91/440/EEC.

The Commission has requested external consultants to assess the financial situation of the railway undertakings and the infrastructure managers during the nineties (1996 and 1997/8), as well as in 2003[11] and 2005. The results of these surveys clearly show that the financial reporting of the railway infrastructure managers started to comply gradually with the requirements of the amended Directive 91/440/EEC. The latest survey on the financial accounts of railway undertakings evaluated the financial accounts of both railway undertakings and infrastructure managers of 2003/2004 having a yearly turnover of more than 50 million. Euro and includes undertakings from the EU-25 as well as Norway and Switzerland. Comparing the findings of the different surveys is difficult as a result of the enlargement in 2004, as well as the restructuring of the sector itself: new organisations have been created from integrated railway undertakings, whereas other activities have simply been outsourced. The main findings of the latest survey (‘FARU’) are reported below. This first snapshot should not lead to firm conclusions at this stage. It just shows the need to perform an in-depth examination of the situation on the basis of the 2005 accounts.

Separation of accounts

In most Member States, Directive 91/440/EEC as amended by Directive 2001/12/EC, had been implemented by the end of 2005. Member States have initiated a reform process in order to restructure the railway sector thus allowing them to comply with the requirements of the railway directives and to allow the sector to develop rail transport as a competitive mode of transport. As in this study the most recent figures available were from 2004 and in some cases 2003, the situation in 2005 could not be studied in full detail. It should therefore be kept in mind that the data are often referring to previous years rather than the current situation and do not necessarily reflect the current situation, in particular where a restructuring has taken place recently, such as in Spain, Austria, Belgium or Greece. The study showed that 51 out of 95 railway undertakings and infrastructure managers studied have separate accounts in place for passenger and freight transport and/or infrastructure management. It should be observed though that in case a railway undertaking is only active in one particular domain, such as freight transport, the requirement of account separation only becomes relevant if it receives subsidies or state aids to perform its tasks.

Cross subsidies

Cross subsidies occur when the yield from profitable activities is used to fund loss making activities. This can be observed in situations where yields from profitable freight transport are used to fund unprofitable passenger services as for example occurs in the new Member States. It should be noted that most of the annual accounts do not provide sufficient information to make any statements regarding cross subsidies. In most cases, it is not likely that cross subsidies will be reported in a transparent way: an in-depth audit of the books will be required to track these cross subsidies. In very few cases cross subsidies could be found in the annual report or other sources of information about the company or the situation in the country.

Public support

According to the yearly survey carried out by the Commission, Member States report providing between 30 and 35 billion Euros every year to the rail transport sector in the EU15. It is assumed though that this amount must be higher (around 50 billion Euros), as not all the financial transfers are reported in the annual survey. Most of this support is used to fund infrastructure investments, though a significant part is used for public service contracts or obligations in the passenger transport sector and as state aid to allow the restructuring of loss-making freight transport undertakings. Only 33 out of 95 railway undertakings studied provide detailed information on amounts of public support received and the nature of this support. This is only 35% of the companies included in this survey. It should be observed that in some cases, public support is provided to railway undertakings to allow the railway undertaking to comply with commitments in relation to social security schemes or retirement schemes, and that they act, as such as social security executive agencies. This is the case in Belgium and France, where the incumbents receive funds to pay the retirement benefits to its former employees.

A few undertakings fail to provide information on the public support they received. In many cases these are commercial freight transport undertakings that do not generally receive any public support. In other cases (16 railway undertakings), it is known through other sources (press reports; communications) or it could be generally expected (e.g.: conclusion of public service contracts) that the company received public support in 2004 but no mention was made of it.

For a large number of railway undertakings either the amount of public support has been specified but the nature of the support was not explained, or the nature of the support was summarized but no amounts have been published. This limited transparency was the case for 31 railway undertakings out of 95 companies subject to this study, equalling 33% of all undertakings studied.

ANNEX 5

Independence of Essential Functions for Ensuring Non-Discriminatory Access to the Rail Infrastructure

While there are no particular problems concerning the licensing of railway undertakings by independent bodies in accordance with Directive 2001/13/EC, more difficult questions arise in connection with the capacity allocation and charging which are key factors in opening up the market.

Directives 2001/12/EC and 2001/14/EC specify that these functions must be performed independently of the railway undertaking so as to ensure fair and non-discriminatory access to the infrastructure. The Directives do not formally require institutional separation between the activities of infrastructure manager and railway undertaking, but this separation seems to be the best way of ensuring fair and non-discriminatory treatment for all railway undertakings wishing to gain access to the infrastructure. There is a long-running debate in railway circles between the integrated railway undertaking model (often taking the form of a holding company in the Member Sates which advocate this model) and vertical separation (entailing total separation between infrastructure management and transport activities). The pros and cons of each structure are discussed in Annex 6.

To the Commission’s way of thinking, the fundamental issue is the question of ensuring that the infrastructure manager is impartial when it comes to allocating capacity and charging for infrastructure use. Access to European railway infrastructure (meaning both the track and the services vital to the smooth operation of trains) must be transparent and non-discriminatory vis-à-vis any railway undertaking holding the requisite licence and safety certificates, irrespective of its nationality. The party which regulates infrastructure use is in possession of all the information, including sensitive commercial information, about the users. If the infrastructure manager is part of a group that is managed in a unified fashion and includes one or more railway undertakings, this group has, de facto , a competitive advantage over competing railway undertakings. Unless it takes appropriate measures, there is a high risk of collusion. Moreover, there could be a temptation for this group to manage the infrastructure according to its own interests, for example by not making it interoperable for neighbouring railway undertakings or by developing the network according to its own needs rather than those of competing railway undertakings.

If this independence is not guaranteed by means of institutional separation into two separate legal entities which do not belong to the same holding company, clear and transparent criteria such as organisational separation and the independence of the management bodies must be ensured. The Commission intends to make a thorough analysis of each situation with the cooperation of the Member States concerned. On this basis, it may in addition take individual measures or propose amendments to the Directives concerned, e.g. by introducing criteria concerning independence.

Criteria for the Commission’s assessment of the independence of infrastructure management functions

The Directives 91/440/EEC, as amended by Directive 2001/12/EC as well as in Directive 2001/14/EC require a legal, organisational and decision making independence. In assessing the independence requirements for essential infrastructure management functions such as the allocation of train paths and the setting of rail infrastructure charges laid down in the directives, the Commission faces three basic variants of the corporate structure for the infrastructure manager:

- A legally, organisationally and institutionally independent rail infrastructure manager;

- An integrated rail infrastructure manager working alongside an independent capacity allocation and charging body. This option may include the variant of a fully independent infrastructure manager which delegates particular tasks (e.g. daily traffic management, infrastructure maintenance works) to the (incumbent) railway undertaking and

- A legally and organisationally independent infrastructure manager which is part of a railway holding structure or any other structure controlled by a railway undertaking.

A fourth variant is where the infrastructure manager in charge of allocating capacity and a railway undertaking are still integrated. This variant is not compatible with Community legislation. Some Member States such as Ireland, the UK for Northern Ireland and Greece have derogation in this respect.

The table below provides an overview on the current corporate structures of the rail infrastructure managers in European countries.

Category | Member States |

Fully legally, organisationally and institutionally independent infrastructure manager undertaking capacity allocation | Great Britain, Finland, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Portugal, Slovakia, Lithuania |

Independent infrastructure manager allocating capacity having delegated certain infrastructure management functions (e.g. traffic management, maintenance) to one of the train operating companies/ Integrated infrastructure manager working alongside an independent body in charge of capacity allocation | Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Hungary, Slovenia, Luxembourg |

Legally (but not institutionally) independent infrastructure manager undertaking capacity allocation owned by a holding company which also owns one of the operators | Austria, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Greece |

Infrastructure manager in charge of allocating capacity and railway undertaking still integrated | Ireland, Northern Ireland |

The Commission services will carry out a case-by-case analysis of the way in which essential infrastructure functions are managed , as notified by the Member States. To demonstrate independence, the absence of a conflict of interest and to assess the compliance with EU legislation, several criteria should be used such as:

- Compliance with the independence requirements should be monitored by an independent authority or third party. This role could for instance fall to an independent rail regulatory body. Competitors should have the possibility to complain about any breach of those independence requirements;

- Statutory and/or contractual independence provisions in the relationship between the controlling structure/holding and the entity entrusted with essential functions, between the entity entrusted with essential functions and other (rail service providing) companies of the group, or other entities which are controlled by the holding, including in particular the shareholders’ meeting of the entity entrusted with essential functions;

- The board members of the holding and/or of other companies of the holding should not be in the board of the entity entrusted with essential functions;

- The board members of the entity entrusted with essential functions and senior staff members dealing with essential functions should, for a reasonable number of years, be barred from accepting any senior position with the holding or with other entities under its control after they leave the essential functions entity.

- The management board of the entity entrusted with essential functions must be appointed under clear conditions and legal commitments to ensure the full independence of its decision making. It should be appointed and dismissed under the control of an independent public authority, such as a rail regulatory body.

- The entity entrusted with essential functions should have its own staff and be located in separate premises or with protected access. Access to the information systems has to be protected to ensure independence of essential functions. The internal rule or staff contracts should clearly limit the contacts with the holding and other companies under its control to the official communications connected with the exercise of the essential functions.

ANNEX 6

Unbundling Infrastructure and Operations in Network Industries: The Case of the Railway Sector

1. Characteristic features of network industries

Railway, electricity and telecommunication sectors, as network industries, possess some important features which strongly determine their organizational structure. Network industries deliver products and services to final consumers via a “network infrastructure” which is built by different elements linking upstream supply with consumers downstream. The main defining characteristics of these kinds of industries are the very high fixed costs of developing their infrastructure, decreasing average costs by increasing output as well as the existence of advantages which arise from the conjoint production of different goods inside one firm[12]. The duplication of the system is extremely expensive and economically inefficient thus network industries normally have features of natural monopolies. Moreover, before the investment in infrastructure, retailers and users fully depend on decisions of the firm willing to invest in the network facilities. Once the network is established, investors are dependent on the network operators and retailers who may wish to set lower prices for the access to the network[13]. In such cases, there is a strong incentive for both sides to vertically integrate[14]. Finally, network industries usually provide essential services and have certain non-economic obligations set by governments, due to the high importance of continuity of supply of their services.

All the reasons mentioned above are often seen as justification for governmental interference in network industries, further exacerbated by the fact that in many EU Member States they are generally large vertically integrated and publicly owned organizations[15]. However, it should be borne in mind that network industries have often both competitive and non-competitive segments. The non-competitive segments in the railway, electricity, gas and telecommunications industry include respectively: track and signalling infrastructure, high-voltage transmission and local electricity distribution, high-pressure transmission of gas, local residential telephony and local loop. Potentially competitive segments in these industries include: operation of trains and maintenance facilities, electricity generation and supply, gas production, supply and storage as well as long-distance telephony, mobile telecommunications and value added services[16]. Stimulating the competitive segments has the potential to result in large operational gains[17]. As shown later, this aim may be achieved through the separation of infrastructure and operations in the industries concerned.

2. Regulatory provisions on the separation of infrastructure and operations in the electricity and the telecommunication sector

In the electricity sector unbundling of transmission and distribution systems and a gradual opening of national markets has been introduced with the EU Directives 96/92/EC and 2003/54/EC. In particular Directive 2003/54/EC aims to achieve, by July 2007 at the latest: legal unbundling of transmission system operators and distribution system operators from the rest of the industry (legal unbundling means, as a minimum, independence of the organization and its decision making processes without the obligation to separate the ownership of assets)[18], free entry to generation, monitoring of supply competition, full market opening, promotion of renewable sources, strengthening the role of the regulator and introducing a single European market[19].

In the telecommunication sector separation between infrastructure and operations takes the form of unbundling the local loop. A local loop refers to the infrastructure allowing the delivery of retail telecommunications services[20]. The EC Regulation on Local Loop Unbundling (EC/2887/2000) which came into force on the 2nd of January 2001 requires incumbent operators throughout Europe to offer unbundled access to their local loops on reasonable request. The Regulation also requires the incumbents to offer shared access and sub-loop unbundling. In the case of the shared use of the copper line consumers can acquire data services from an operator while retaining the voice services of the incumbent. Some operators may choose to offer data services only, so through line sharing consumers can retain their service for voice calls while getting higher bandwidth services from another operator without needing to install a second line. Sub-loop unbundling means that operators other than incumbent firms can interconnect with the local access network at a point between the incumbent’s site and the end user.

3. Unbundling the infrastructure from the operations in the railway sector

3.1. European Directives on rail infrastructure unbundling

Vertical separation in the railway sector is the separation of track infrastructure from operational transport services. The infrastructure remains under the control of a regulated public or private monopolist, and one or more railway firms are able to operate rail services[21].

The European legislation on rail infrastructure unbundling does not explicitly require splitting infrastructure and operations into separate business entities. The EU Directives 91/440/EEC, 95/18/EC and 95/19/EC emphasize solely the necessity for separate accounting of infrastructure and operations. Directive 2001/12/EC goes further in requiring railways to keep separate accounts for passenger and freight services. Other requirements set by these Directives include the independency of the infrastructure manager from any railway undertakings, the non-discriminatory access to the infrastructure for operators, and the obligation for infrastructure managers to publish Network Statements with concise information on their networks and its technical characteristics[22].

There are two methods for achieving the required minimum separation set by the Directives on rail infrastructure unbundling: ownership separation and organizational separation. In the first case the infrastructure manager and the railway operator are autonomous entities with separate ownership, balance sheets and staff. This method has been implemented in the UK. In the case of organizational unbundling, separate business units are created with a large degree of operational freedom either operating as part of the railway operator (like e.g. in Belgium or Italy) or organized within a holding company framework (e.g. Germany)[23].

3.2. Advantages of vertical separation in the rail sector

The most important advantages of vertical separation in the railway sector are an increase in transparency, in cost efficiency, in neutrality, in the competition level and in reliability as well as better possibilities to privatize commercial activities.

Transparency: The combination of separation and publication of the Network Statement ensures greater transparency of the capacity and the terms and conditions of the infrastructure manager[24]. It enables the comparison of infrastructure costs across different modes of transport[25], improves the informational position of the regulator enabling him to set tariffs and incentives more appropriately[26] and decreases the risk of cross-subsidization and the problems of asymmetric information[27]. This, in turn, allows the determination of the true costs of running a railway business and creates fair conditions for potential entrants. However, one has to consider that due to the large number of interfaces involved between the infrastructure and railway operations, a precise allocation of costs cannot always be made. This means that a certain degree of cross subsidization of services and routes will occur despite of the account separation[28].

Cost Efficiency: Separation allows specialization on core activities and a better customization of goods and services offered[29]. Moreover, one of the reasons for separating the infrastructure from operations is the reduction of unit costs which will decrease with the increase in traffic carried by a rail line. The costs of allowing a new operator to use an existing line are far lower than the costs of building its own infrastructure by the operator[30].

Neutrality: A non-discriminatory third-party access to networks can only be realized when there is a true separation between the companies operating on the network and those responsible for charging for access to the network infrastructure[31]. Despite the existence of laws requiring neutrality towards all operators, this may not be possible if the charging body is an integrated railway company, as they may be able to give preferential treatment to their internal train operations[32]. Moreover, vertical separation may additionally reduce the incentives of infrastructure owners to restrict access to rival firms in the downstream markets.

Competition: Clear and separate responsibilities of infrastructure managers and transport operators are essential to increase the level of competition in rail transport[33]. Competitive pressures, in turn, ensure that railway operators take the necessary rationalization measures and bring about innovation and development in this sector[34]. Respectively, ownership of infrastructure and operations does not provide any incentives to promote free competition because monopolistic tendencies do not favour entry of other railway operators to the same infrastructure[35].

Reliability: Increased independency of network management and financing ensures that decisions are taken in the best interests of the network. Moreover, as mentioned earlier, transparency established by unbundling enables the regulator to better create proper incentives to networks[36] which stimulates their development and leads to an increase in the quality of services offered.

Finally, unbundling encourages the privatization of commercial activities: Ownership unbundling separates network and commercial activities paving the way for privatization of commercial parts of the industry. Privatization of the competitive segments of the sector, in turn, generally increases their efficiency[37].

3.3. Disadvantages of vertical separation in the rail sector

The negative effects which may be triggered by the separation of infrastructure and operations in the railway sector include the existence of transitional costs, the loss of economies of scope, the risk of double marginalization, coordination problems, as well as the possible negative effects on the quality, safety and reliability of rail services and on the level of competition.

Transitional costs: Changing the existing industry structure involves costs of restructuring companies’ offices, renegotiating the existing contracts of integrated companies with other parties and introducing changes in personnel and housing. There arise also legal costs connected to the implementation of a higher degree of unbundling and costs of the introduction of a new process and program management.[38] However, in the specific context of the EU (where integrated incumbents are usually less efficient), the restructuring costs are expected to be offset by the reduction of costs for operating railway services which would follow liberalization and introduction of competition into this sector.

Loss of the economies of scope: Separation of infrastructure and operations leads to the loss of advantages which arise from the integrated performance of different activities within one railway company[39].

Increased risk of insufficient investments in infrastructure: Under vertical integration the incentives to invest in infrastructure are generally greater than in the case of separation. As the network owner has to share gains from its investments with other parties in the business chain, it generally invests less than an integrated firm would[40]. However, this could be avoided by stricter state/regulatory control or contracts with the infrastructure manager. In the UK example (which is often quoted as an example) the mistaken perception is that a relatively high number of accidents were a consequence of the activities of the privatised infrastructure manager. Although there were a number of high profile accidents, there is no evidence to suggest that the high profile accidents were a direct result of having an infrastructure manager in the private sector and indeed, the long term safety trend has been one of the improvements..

Double marginalization: Vertical integration diminishes incentives for double marginalization. Under the condition of separation, companies are faced with more inelastic demand thus they may demand higher prices than a vertically integrated monopolist[41]. However, if unbundling is done with the aim of introducing competition downstream, double marginalization usually does not occur because the downstream operator is not able to set a profit maximizing (monopolist) price.

Coordination problems: Settlement of conflicts may prove to be relatively more complicated in a separated environment. A large number of complex interfaces exist in the railway sector. As decisions often require mutual involvement and have to be taken rapidly, vertical separation of entities operating infrastructure and train services increases the transaction costs of decision making[42]. In the context of several railway undertakings with separate contractual arrangements with the infrastructure manager, solving problems may involve identifying the contractual terms of operation; this may result in time delays. One has to keep in mind, however, that in the EU context co-ordination problems would exist even in the case of full integration. The reason for this is that multiple railway undertakings must coordinate their access to the European network with infrastructure managers from other countries.

In an integrated company decisions concerning access to the network are taken more easily and quickly in accordance with a clearly defined hierarchical procedure[43]. The lack of standardized services in the railway sector additionally increases the coordination costs through negotiations[44]. However, the possible increase in prices for services due to the lack of standardisation would probably be more than balanced by price reduction resulting from the increased competition in the sector.

Lower level of quality and safety of the rail service: The quality and safety of rail services depend heavily on close coordination of infrastructure and train operations. Separation and the resulting increased level of competition lead to a larger number of actors involved in the sector and thus to a larger number of interfaces where mistakes may occur[45]. However, as operators seek access to other European markets in the framework of the internal rail market opening, with or without separation a large number of interfaces would appear anyway.

Possible negative impact on competition: In some cases the separation of infrastructure and operations may also have a negative impact on the level of competition in network industries. Unbundled commercial firms can become less strong financially and, as a consequence, more prone to the risk of mergers and takeovers which may reduce the number of rivals and thus the level of competition[46]. Furthermore, if the scale of operation and market demand are not large enough so as to allow for cost recovery and profitable operations, competition may lead to inefficient entries. In this case both the incumbent and the entrant will suffer from the establishment of a new firm. Such a situation is most likely to occur in regional, suburban and urban services which are usually better served by a single operator under a concession regime or public service obligations[47]. One has to bear in mind, however, the specific EU-context of large, traditional, state-owned incumbents. Private newcomers, in spite of their smaller size, may have cost advantages in relation to the state undertakings because of their leaner structure as well as greater efficiency and independency of political factors. Moreover, by discussing the need to increase competition in the rail sector, it shouldn’t be forgotten that rail already faces an intense inter-sector rivalry from alternative modes of transport, locations and products[48].

Possible negative impact on the reliability of rail services: The reliability of rail services may in some cases be negatively affected by the increased risk of the opportunistic behaviour of actors involved in the sector and by insufficient investments in the infrastructure[49]. Moreover, problems may arise which do not have a clear identification of the respective responsibilities of infrastructure managers and operators[50]. However, as was mentioned earlier in this paper, the competitive pressure on the operators generated through separation will most probably force them to offer better and more reliable services. This reliability gain is expected to more than balance the negative impacts of the possible opportunistic behaviour and/or the insufficient investments in the infrastructure.

3.4. Infrastructure unbundling from the perspective of the single European market for rail services

An efficient operation of international rail services and the optimization of infrastructure use across Europe requires close co-operation on the side of infrastructure managers, especially in the field of international allocation of train paths and in the area of infrastructure charging. The current structure of the national railway markets is detrimental to the development of such co-operation because railway undertakings are still in a position to control the infrastructure management, at least in the model of organizational separation and vertical integration. The creation of the Rail Net Europe in 2003 in Vienna, gathering together infrastructure managers, was a first step towards a European-wide cooperation leading to the offering of international paths for railway undertakings. The question is, however, whether grand father rights are still taken into account in this process. The more the incumbent railway undertaking is close to the infrastructure manager, the more such risk exists.

The fact that some infrastructure managers form an integral part of national railway undertakings threatens also the Europe-wide non-discriminatory access to rail related services and facilities, such as terminals, catenaries, refuelling and maintenance facilities. In the case of heavily used services particularly, there are concerns regarding the preference shown by service providers towards the railway undertakings operated by themselves. Transparency and separation of functions are therefore vital to ensure an equal treatment of the incumbent and the independent railway undertakings as regards access to the rail infrastructure and to service facilities in order to optimize their use at a European level[51].

4. Closing words

One has to keep in mind that the overview of advantages and disadvantages of vertical separation in the European network industries presented in this paper is of highly qualitative nature mainly based on theoretical reasoning and expert judgments. As evidence from Member States is insufficient, it is hard to quantify the extent of the potential benefits and costs arising from the extensive regulatory reforms. Moreover, these kinds of changes have strongly differing effects across a short- and a long-term time horizon. However, from the arguments above it can be concluded that as changing ownership within an industry may have far-reaching consequences, a thorough analysis of costs and benefits of such measures is critical. Vertical separation of infrastructure and operations brings many benefits into the network industries, such as an increase in transparency, cost efficiency, neutrality, competition and reliability as well as better possibilities to privatize commercial activities. Theoretically, it may also trigger some negative effects, like transitional costs, loss of economies of scope, risk of double marginalization and coordination problems. In a fully functioning and competitive market at which we are aiming , the question of discrimination and its link to vertical separation or integration wouldwould be less important. However, the challenge being faced is about how to get from the current various national situations to a mature European market. It is the task of the policy maker to make the appropriate regulatory provisions and to monitor their implementation at a national level in order to ensure progress is being made towards open and functioning markets.

Bibliography:

Arendt, Sebastian: Creating Competition in the