Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on "Trans-European Rail Freight Freeways"'
Date: 1998-01-28
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: carriage of goods, competitiveness, freight rate, rail transport, trans-European network

30.3.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 95/21

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the Commission
to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions on “Trans-European Rail Freight Freeways”’

(98/C 95/06)

On 3 June 1997 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned
communication.

The Section for Transport and Communications, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 16 December 1997. The rapporteur
was Mr Kritz.

At its 351st plenary session of 28 and 29 January 1998 (meeting of 28 January 1998) the
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 119 votes for, two votes
against and two abstentions.

1. Background

1.1.
Since 1970 rail freight transport in Europe has
declined by nearly a quarter, measured in tonne kilo-
metres. At the same time the total freight transport
market has increased by 70 %. This means that rail’s
market share has declined to about 15 % of the total
freight carried by road, rail, inland waterways and
pipelines in the European Union. If current trends
continue over the next decade, rail’s market share will
fall to 9 %, while the market as a whole will expand by
30 %.

These are global figures and they may give too
1.2.
gloomy a picture of the performance of Europe’s
railways. Not all freight is suitable for carriage by rail;
in fact, most of Europe’s freight is carried over short
distances (under 250 kilometres), and in small consign-
ments, and is therefore not normally a relevant market
for rail.

1.3.
Transport of freight over long distances has
increased, but rail transport has not always been able to
offer competitive services in these markets. This is a
major cause for concern, as long distance services with
large volumes of freight are ‘ideal’ rail markets.

1.4.
Freight transport over longer distances in Europe
generally means crossing national borders. The national
focus of the European railways has left them handi-
capped when dealing with border-crossing operations.
They are to some extent lacking in technical interop-
erability. International timetables are often hard to
reconcile with national timetable requirements. Not all
railway undertakings show a sufficient commercial
interest in international freight operations. They do not
seem to know the requirements of the European market
and to be organized to take advantage of opportunities.

railways (1). Its main objective was to halt the decline of
rail freight and rail passenger transport in Europe. The
strategy implies a ‘new kind of railway’ which is geared
to be responsive to the needs of the customers. The plan
to revitalize the railways includes the creation of a
number of ‘Trans-European Rail Freight Freeways’ to
tackle the specific problems of cross-border rail freight.

1.6.
The origin of the Rail Freight Freeway concept
came from an advisory group appointed by Com-
missioner Kinnock to look at the future role of rail in
European transport. The group’s report was published
in June 1996 and high on the priority list was ‘the
establishment of a number of rail freight corridors where
measures could readily be taken to improve the ability
of rail to offer a competitive service’ (‘The future of rail
transport in Europe’, June 1996, p. 14). It should
be added that the advisory group was composed of
transport users, railway operators and workers, acting
in a personal capacity.

2. The Commission document

2.1.
‘Rail Freight Freeways’ means designated corri-
dors, or routes, for international rail freight transport.
Existing lines are to be utilized, but in a more efficient
way than today, through improved train paths (time-
tables) and reduced border crossing time.

2.2.
The Freeway concept is focused on rail infrastruc-
ture, where cross-border rail paths have to be planned,
allocated, operated and charged in a new and more
efficient way.

2.3.
The whole concept of Trans-European Rail
Freight Freeways relies on voluntary implementation
by infrastructure managers and Member States. The
communication should be considered as a recommen-
dation by the Commission on how freeways should be
set up.

In July 1996 the Commission published a White
1.5.
Paper on A strategy for revitalizing the Community’s

(1) ESC opinion: OJ C 206, 7.7.1997, p. 23.

C 95/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30.3.98

As to the operation on a freeway the Commission

2.4.
concludes that:

— a freeway should be open for fair, equal and
non-discriminatory access to all train operators
licensed in the Community;

— the criteria for licensing train operators to operate
on a freeway should follow the same principles as
laid down in Directive 95/18/EC (1);

— the criteria for the allocation of railway infrastruc-
ture capacity and the charging of infrastructure fees
should be in compliance with Directive 95/19/EC (2);

— freeways should, subject to national regulations, be

open to cabotage;

— freight terminals on a freeway will open for fair,
equal and non-discriminatory access to all train, road
haulage and waterway operators as appropriate.

2.5.
A freeway is composed of two or more national
infrastructure bodies. In order to facilitate and simplify
the use of rail infrastructure, the Commission proposes
the creation, by the relevant infrastructure bodies, of a
‘One-Stop-Shop’ (OSS) for each freeway. The main
tasks of this single point of contact for train operators
should be:

— to identify capacity on the freeway;

— to undertake path allocation;

— to charge train operators for their use of the freeway;

— to monitor and control performance of the freeway.

2.6.
The train path allocation process for inter-
national rail freight is currently performed essentially
on a national basis. Low international rail freight
performance is frequently due to gaps between these
national timetables. Furthermore, low priority is often
given to freight traffic when allocating paths. Therefore,
the Commission points out the important role for the
OSSs to create train paths which are attractive to train
operators and shippers, in particular with regard to
journey times requested. It is also important to speed up

(1) Council Directive 95/18/EC of 19 June 1995 on the licensing
of railway undertakings (OJ L 143, 27.6.1995, p. 70); ESC
opinion on the relevant Commission proposal, OJ C 393,
31.12.1994, p. 56.

(2) Council Directive 95/19/EC of 19 June 1995 on the
allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the
charging of infrastructure fees (OJ L 143, 27.6.1995, p. 75);
ESC opinion on the relevant Commission proposal, OJ
C 393, 31.12.1994, p 56.

train path allocation decisions. The target should be
that for regular paths, a decision should be made within
seven working days, and for one-off paths within one
working day.

2.7.
In most countries train operators have to pay
charges for use of the infrastructure. The Commission
underlines that the charging system must be non-
discriminatory, transparent and simple. There should
be a certain flexibility in charging levels, to ensure that
charges can be competitive in relation to road freight
transport.

2.8.
The existence of the single European market
means that there should be no reason for checks at
internal physical borders. Member States should give
commitments to suppress border checks for customs,
safety and phytosanitary purposes where they still exist.
There should be mutual recognition of checks which
have been carried out in the originating state.

3. Practical work under way

3.1.
The potential freeways should meet two basic
criteria: they must first be commercially attractive from
shippers’ point of view, and second, they should have
sufficient capacity. This implies that freeways are likely
to be concentrated on the major international freight
transport corridors which today are served by both road
and rail operators.

Several corridors are considered for the creation
3.2.
of pilot freeways. The transport ministers of the Nether-
lands, Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Italy have
agreed to develop freeways on the following routes:

(a) Rotterdam — Ruhr/Rhine — Basel — Milan —

Genoa — Gioia Tauro (South Italy);

(b) Hamburg/Bremen — Nuremberg — Munich —
Innsbruck — Brenner — Verona — Brindisi (Adri-
atic coast);

(c) Rotterdam/Hamburg/Bremen — Nuremberg —

Passau — Vienna.

The Nordic railways will also be involved in these
north-south pilot freeways.

Among other proposed freeways the following should
be mentioned:

(d) London — Sopron (Hungary), with Sopron as a

mega-hub to central and eastern Europe;

(e) Wolfsburg (Germany) — Barcelona;

(f) Muizen (Antwerp) — Luxembourg — Lyon.

30.3.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 95/23

The first pilot projects to start operation in 1998 will
probably be (a), (b), (c) and (f) on the above list.

— on the capability of railway undertakings to be

responsive to the needs of customers; and

3.3.
At the end of 1996 the Commission established
a high-level group of personal representatives of the
transport ministers. This group has been instrumental
in shaping the freeway concept, and is active in the
discussions on specific pilot projects.

3.4.
The Community of European Railways (CER)
represents railway companies of the EU, Norway and
Switzerland. The CER has set up a number of working
groups to look into practical issues raised by freeways
and has regular discussions with the high-level group
and the Commission. To identify the sort of technical
problems to be overcome and to develop an understand-
ing of the operation of a freeway, the CER performed a
simulation on two corridors from Benelux to Italy. The
results are presented in CER’s report ‘European Rail
Freightways: Proposal to the European Commission’
(published in April 1997).

3.5. Other organizations have also been involved in
the practical work on the future development of free-
ways. The European Shippers’ Council submitted to the
Commission in April 1997 a paper on ‘Developing
successful rail freight freeways: A shippers’ framework’.
The Freight Leaders and Logistics Club, representing
some of Europe’s largest manufacturers and transport
companies, have investigated potential freeway routes.

4. General comments

4.1.
There is a need to radically change the way in
which the European rail freight market functions,
especially when it comes to border crossing traffic.
For that reason the Economic and Social Committee
welcomes this communication from the Commission,
and sees the creation of freeways as an important step
towards revitalizing the European railways.

4.2.
In its Opinion on the White Paper on a strategy for
revitalizing the Community’s railways the Committee
stressed that ‘in view of the extremely difficult situation,
there is an urgent need for action’, and ‘broadly speaking
the Committee supports the creation of freeways’ (1).

4.3.
The freeways are a voluntary venture. Therefore,
the Committee underlines that their success depends
ultimately:

— on the willingness of Member States and of national
infrastructure managers to co-operate on freeways;

— on the readiness of Member States to provide train
operators with the necessary managerial freedom.

4.4.
The Committee has noted from the practical
work under way that freeways could be operable early
in 1998. This is due to the unique character of the
freeways project, in the sense that:

— no changes to Community legislation are needed;

— no immediate infrastructure investments are needed,

as existing infrastructure will be utilized;

— no immediate investments in rolling stock or equip-
ment are needed as existing ones will be used;

— trains would continue to operate on the basis
of existing but, where easily possible, simplified
procedures.

4.5.
The new regulatory framework contained in
Directives 91/440 (2), 95/18 and 95/19, is intended to
introduce a more commercial impetus into European
rail freight transport. The Committee therefore recog-
nizes that the freeways concept is not in itself a new
market liberalization measure. It is a pragmatic approach
to tie national rail freight transport operations together
into trans-European rail freight networks.

4.6.
Directive 91/440 sets out rights of access to
railway infrastructure in the Community, and the other
two directives establish requirements relating to licensing
of railway undertakings (95/18) and to allocation of
railway infrastructure capacity and the charging of
infrastructure fees (95/19). These directives have not yet
been completely transposed into national legislation.
This is a problem for rail transport in general, but
particularly for the freeways. As of 20 October 1997 the
implementation of Article 10 in 91/440 (which provides
the access rights) remains to be notified by Spain,
Luxembourg and Italy. As regards directives 95/18 and
95/19 only Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany and
Sweden had, by 20 October 1997, notified the Com-
mission of complete or partial transposition. These
directives should have been transposed not later than
27 June 1997. This situation is unacceptable, and the
Committee therefore urges Member States to immedi-
ately implement these three directives. The success of
freeways must not be endangered because of a lack of

(1) ESC opinion: OJ C 206, 7.7.1997, p. 23.

(2) 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); ESC opinion on the relevant Commission
proposal: OJ C 225, 10.9.1990, p. 27.

C 95/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30.3.98

the legal framework at Member State level. Ultimately,
the Commission must take legal action against Member
States that have not yet transposed these directives into
national law.

4.7.
Infrastructure managers and Member States seem
to have had a large influence in the planning stage of
the freeways. Even if the technical aspects on freeway
operations are key issues, the Committee is of the
opinion that shippers and railway undertakings must
have a stronger voice in the current discussions on
selecting corridors and performance criteria. They are
much closer to the market than the infrastructure
managers and Member States.

The Committee is pleased to see an early start of
4.8.
freeway operations. It has to be recognized, however,
that the first freeways are designed to rely mainly on
existing rail freight flows. Existing traffic will have
shorter journey times and higher punctuality than before.
This is the first step in the development of freeways, but
the next step must be to increase rail’s market share.
Train operators have to set revenue targets in business
plans, in close contact with existing and new customers.
They also need to show evidence of an improved service
offer to shippers.

4.9. With reference to the preceding point, the Com-
mittee notes that there is very little in the Commission
document about the future markets for the freeways. In
this connection the Committee finds it essential that the
development of freeways accommodates the needs of
conventional rail freight customers. As a concept it may
seem less interesting than combined transport but
transport by conventional rail wagon methods represents
the dominant part of the railways’ business, even if it is
declining. Having said this, railway undertakings must
attract new customers, for example by developing
efficient intermodal systems. The transport user per-
ceives road haulage as the benchmark for freight
transport in Europe. Shippers are open-minded about
their choice of mode of transport but need convincing
that rail can provide the service they require regarding
price, reliability and speed.

4.10.
The likelihood of significantly higher volumes
of goods and of many more freight trains running on
individual lines raises the question of how much unused
capacity is available in the main rail freight corridors.
The Committee believes it is essential that the national
infrastructure managers in cooperation with the OSSs
do their utmost to identify unused rail freight capacity,
to reduce the problem of bottlenecks, and to resolve
conflicting freight and passenger demand for train

paths. The possibility of establishing several parallel
north-south and west-east freeways, of running longer
trains, of making the traffic control systems more
efficient and of achieving technical
interoperability,
should be explored. Sooner or later, with growing
demand for freeway operations, it will be necessary to
invest in improved or new rail
infrastructure. It is
important to clarify when this will occur, to allow
infrastructure managers and train operators to plan for
future investments.

4.11.
A freeway will often be one part of an intermodal
transport chain (road/rail; sea/rail). Terminals are many
times weak links in intermodal systems, and can increase
the cost of door-to-door transport services considerably,
e.g. by unnecessary delays. In the view of the Committee,
the key role of terminals for a successful development
of rail freight transport on freeways has been underem-
phasized by the Commission in its communication.
Improving train paths (timetables) is a necessary, but
not sufficient, condition for better intermodal freight
transport operations. The Committee therefore finds it
essential that infrastructure managers, railway under-
takings and shippers together develop efficient and well
functioning terminals.

4.12.
The Commission has stressed that freight ter-
minals on a freeway should be open for fair, equal and
non-discriminating access to all train, road haulage and
waterway operators. It has probably underestimated
that open access to freight terminals is a complicated
issue, due to the different forms of ownership and
different types of terminals. The Committee therefore
proposes that further considerations should be given to
the matter of open access to terminals.

4.13.
Employment in the European railway sector
has gone down over the latest decades, mainly because
of declining traffic volumes and rationalization. The
aim of the freeways project is to make European rail
freight more competitive, in order to increase the volume
of goods carried by rail and rail’s market share.
Successful development of the freeways would at least
halt the decline in employment. In its opinion of June
1997, the Joint Committee on Railways stressed that the
development of freeways needs personnel trained for
different kinds of infrastructures, and that this could be
done in a way similar to what was carried out successfully
by the railways and their personnel for the Thalys and
Eurostar services.

4.14. Where demand and commercial opportunities
exist, freeways should be extended beyond the borders
of the Community. It is probable that the largest
potential is to be found on links with Hungary, the

30.3.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 95/25

Czech Republic and Poland. It is up to the Commission
and the Member States to further explore how access
by third countries to some pilot freeways could be made
possible.

Committee is of the opinion that customers must
know both the structure and the level of
the
infrastructure charges when negotiating transport
prices with railway undertakings.

5. Specific comments

5.2. Access rights

5.1. Charging for the use of rail infrastructure

5.1.1.
The CER has estimated that the infrastructure
charges amount to 20 to 50 % of the price that rail
freight customers have to pay train operators. On some
routes the infrastructure charges may be so high that
freeway services cannot compete with road transport.

The

charging systems vary considerably
5.1.2.
between Member States. In some countries train oper-
ators pay nothing when using the infrastructure, in
others — like Germany — charges are high.

5.1.3.
In the short term freeway charges are likely to
be based on the existing infrastructure charging systems,
which will mean they are the total of the national tariffs
set by each individual infrastructure manager along a
freeway.

5.1.4.
In the light of these circumstances the Com-
mittee considers the present systems for infrastructure
charges as being a very serious problem. In order to
create favourable conditions for freeway operations,
solutions need to be found along the following lines:

a) Member States must apply the same charging prin-
ciples. The Commission is currently undertaking a
study with the view of bringing the existing charging
systems closer together. The Committee urges the
Commission to give the highest priority to this study,
and to involve not only railways but also shippers in
this work.

b) Application of common charging principles does not
mean harmonized charges. The level of charges
should reflect the relevant costs.

Existing rights of access to railway infrastruc-
5.2.1.
ture are set out
in Directive 91/440. For railway
undertakings operating international combined trans-
port services, the directive provides a total right of access
as well as the right to load and unload cargo (cabotage
is excluded). For international groupings of railway
undertakings, access rights are limited to the Member
States in which they are established as well as a right
of transit in other Member States, but loading and
unloading in transit countries is not permitted.

5.2.2.
The Committee agrees with the Commission
that access to freeways should ideally be open to all
licensed Community railway undertakings who meet
the requirements in Directives 95/18 and 91/440. A
number of Member States agree with this, but the
Committee is aware of some Member States who prefer
a more cautious approach.

The Commission points out that it is essential
5.2.3.
that railway undertakings can acquire business in a
Member State other than the one in which they are
licensed, and operate train services to and from that
second Member State without being obliged to enter
into a classical cooperation agreement with a railway
undertaking from that State. If locomotives and drivers
have to be provided, this could be done through normal
commercial contracts between the two undertakings.
The Committee endorses these Commission proposals.

5.3. Freeways and competition law

5.3.1.
The Commission document is rather vague as
to whether cooperative agreements for establishing the
OSSs, and cooperation between railway undertakings
on freeways, fall under the prohibition of Article 85(1)
of the EC Treaty. This is understandable due to the
complexity of EC competition rules.

c) The high level of infrastructure charges on some
routes creates a risk that railway undertakings will
not be able to compete successfully with road
hauliers. In the view of the Committee, Member
States should be aware of this fact and act accord-
ingly.

5.3.2. When it comes to evaluating how competition
is affected, the Committee is of the opinion that a clear
distinction should be made between agreements required
for the establishment of an OSS, and agreements between
railway undertakings.

d) Infrastructure charges must be transparent and
non-discriminatory. They represent a — often sub-
stantial — part of the price railway undertakings
offer their customers for using the freeways. The

5.3.3.
As to the former type of agreements, close
cooperation between infrastructure managers is inherent
in the freeway concept. Without agreements on planning,
allocating and operating cross border rail paths, there

C 95/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30.3.98

will be no freeways. Furthermore, rail infrastructure
managers do not compete with each other in a market.
In the view of the Committee, agreements between
infrastructure managers in order to establish and operate
freeways would not fall under Article 85(1).

As to the second type of cooperation, the
5.3.4.
situation is different with regard to competition. Railway
undertakings operate in a market, and could combine
in technical and commercial agreements. Whether or
not this type of cooperation will prevent, restrict or
distort competition within the common market has to
be decided on the basis of a case-by-case assessment.
The Committee considers it probable that Article 85(3)
might apply in many cases, with individual exemptions
as a result. A key issue in this connection must be to
define the relevant market.

6. Summary and conclusions

have not yet been completely transposed into national
legislation. This situation is unacceptable, and the
Committee therefore urges the negligent Member States
to immediately implement these three directives. The
success of freeways must not be endangered because of
a lack of the legal framework at Member State level.
Ultimately, the Commission must take legal action
against Member States that have not yet transposed
these directives into national law.

The first freeways (in 1998) are designed to rely
6.5.
mainly on existing rail freight flows, which should mean
shorter journey times and higher punctuality than before.
The next step for railway undertakings must be to
attract new customers and to increase rail’s market
share. In this connection it is worth noting that transport
users perceive road haulage as the benchmark for freight
transport in Europe. Therefore, they need convincing
that rail can provide the service they require regarding
price, reliability and speed.

6.1.
The national focus of the European railways has
left them handicapped when dealing with border-
crossing transport of freight. Technical interoperability
is to some extent lacking. International timetables
are often hard to reconcile with national timetable
requirements. Low priority is often given to freight
traffic when allocating paths. Not all railway under-
takings show a sufficient commercial interest in inter-
national freight operations.

6.6.
Terminals are often weak links in intermodal
transport systems (road/rail; sea/rail), and can increase
the cost of door-to-door transport considerably. In the
view of the Committee, the key role of terminals for a
successful development of rail freight transport on
freeways has been underemphasized by the Commission,
and particularly the problem of open access, as there
are different forms of ownership of terminals.

There is a need to radically change the way in
6.2.
which the European rail freight markets function,
especially when it comes to border-crossing traffic.
Therefore, the Committee welcomes this communi-
cation from the Commission on Trans European Rail
Freight Freeways. The creation of freeways will be
an important step towards revitalizing the European
railways. The freeways will offer important possibilities
for increasing the railways’ efficiency and competi-
tiveness.

6.3.
As freeways are a voluntary venture, the Com-
mittee underlines that their success ultimately depends:

— on the willingness of Member States and of national

infrastructure managers to cooperate;

— on the capability of railway undertakings to be

responsive to the needs of the customers; and

— on the readiness of Member States to provide
railway undertakings with the necessary managerial
freedom.

6.4.
The new regulatory framework for rail transport
in Europe, contained in Directives 91/440, 95/18 and
95/19, is intended to introduce a more commercial
impetus into rail freight transport. These directives

Employment in the European railway sector
6.7.
has gone down over the latest decades. Successful
development of the freeways would at least halt the
decline in employment, as the aim of the freeways
project is to make rail freight more competitive, in order
to get more freight on rail.

The charging systems for the use of rail infrastruc-
6.8.
ture vary considerably between Member States which,
according to the Committee, constitutes a very serious
problem for the development of the freeways. The
Committee therefore asks the Commission to give the
highest priority to complete its current study on common
charging principles. Infrastructure charges must be
non-discriminatory, cost-related and transparent. The
Committee regrets that the high level of infrastructure
charges on some routes creates a risk that railway
undertakings will not be able to compete successfully
with other modes of transport.

6.9.
Freeway operations mean cooperative agree-
ments between infrastructure managers, and might
include cooperation between railway undertakings. The
Committee is of the opinion that a clear distinction
should be made between agreements required for the
establishment of an OSS, and agreements between

30.3.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 95/27

railway undertakings. The former type of agreements
should not, in the view of the Committee, fall under the
prohibition of Article 85 (1) of the EC Treaty. As to
cooperation between railway undertakings, the situation

is different with regard to competition. Whether or not
this type of cooperation will prevent, restrict or distort
competition within the common market has to be
decided on the basis of a case-by-case assessment.

Brussels, 28 January 1998.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Regulation
(EC) amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 2299/89 on a Code of Conduct for Com-
puterized Reservation Systems (CRSs)’ (1)

(98/C 95/07)

On 5 August 1997 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 75 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned
proposal.

The Section for Transport and Communications, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 19 January 1998. The rapporteur
was Mr Moreland.

At its 351st plenary session of 28 and 29 January 1998 (meeting of 28 January 1998), the
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 112 votes for, 2 votes
against and 3 abstentions.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
Airline computer reservation systems (CRSs) are
extremely powerful marketing tools. They enable travel
agents to access the schedules, fares, etc. of the vast
majority of scheduled airlines throughout the world.
Bookings, even for obscure routings, can be confirmed
instantaneously and tickets priced and issued. CRSs
have undoubtedly brought major benefits for airlines,
travel agents and consumers.

1.2. However, they are also open to abuse. Modern
CRSs were developed initially in the United States by
individual airlines. They were invariably biased in
favour of the owning carrier. Because of the impact of
such bias on fair competition the US government

(1) OJ C 267, 3.9.1997, p. 67.

introduced regulations governing the use of CRSs in
1984. The EU followed with its own, more detailed rules
in 1989 (2), which were revised in 1993 (3).

1.3.
Regulation of CRSs has been a success. The
original bias, which caused so much concern, especially
for smaller airlines, has been removed. Many major
airlines no longer see any benefit in owning part of a
CRS and have sold all or part of their shareholdings.

(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2299/89 of 24 July 1989 on
a code of conduct for computerized reservation systems
(OJ L 220, 29.7.1989, p. 1); ESC opinion: OJ C 56, 6.3.1989,
p. 32.

(3) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3089/93 of 29 October 1993
amending Regulation (EEC) No 2299/89 on a code of
conduct for computerized reservation systems (OJ L 278,
11.11.1993, p. 1); ESC opinion: OJ C 108, 19.4.1993, p. 16.