Common Position (EC) No 33/2000 of 5 June 2000 adopted by the Council, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, with a view to the adoption of a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision No 1692/96/EC as regards seaports and inland ports as well as project No 8 in Annex III
Date: 2000-06-05
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: harbour installation, inland waterway transport, maritime transport, trans-European network, transport network

9.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 228/1

I

(Information)

COUNCIL

COMMON POSITION (EC) No 33/2000

adopted by the Council on 5 June 2000

with a view to adopting Decision 2000/…/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
... amending Decision No 1692/96/EC as regards seaports and inland ports as well as project No 8
in Annex III

(2000/C 228/01)

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE
EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Com-
munity, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 156
thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission (1),

Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social
Committee (2),

Having regard to the opinion of
Regions (3),

the Committee of

the

Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in
Article 251 of the Treaty (4),

Whereas:

(1)

Decision No 1692/96/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 23 July 1996 on Community
guidelines for the development of the trans-European
transport network (5) constitutes a general reference
framework covering the objectives, priorities and broad
thrust of the measures contemplated as well as the
projects of common interest in the area of the trans-
European transport network.

(1) OJ C 120, 18.4.1998, p. 14.
(2) OJ C 214, 10.7.1998, p. 40.
(3) OJ C 373, 2.12.1998, p. 20.
(4) Opinion of the European Parliament of 10 March 1999 (OJ C
175, 21.6.1999, p. 110). Council Common Position of 5 June
2000 and Decision of the European Parliament of … (not yet
published in the Official Journal).

(5) OJ L 228, 9.9.1996, p. 1.

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Interconnection points including seaports and inland
ports are preconditions for the integration of the differ-
ent transport modes in multimodal network.

In the trans-European seaport network, ports should be
classified into categories on the basis of quantitative
criteria or their location on islands not connected with
the mainland by fixed links and only those ports in the
highest category by volume of traffic should be shown,
by way of indication, on maps. The specifications which
a seaport project is to meet to be deemed of common
interest should be set out.

The criteria relating to inland ports should be sup-
plemented by criteria concerning either the nature of
their equipment or the volume of traffic and those ports
should be shown, by way of indication, on maps.

The European Council held in Dublin in 1996 agreed
that project No 8 in the list from the Essen European
Council of 1994 should become the Portugal/Spain
multimodal link with the rest of Europe.

(6)

Decision No 1692/96/EC should therefore be amended
accordingly,

C 228/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

9.8.2000

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

3.
In addition to the criteria set out in Article 7,
seaport projects of common interest related to seaports
included in the trans-European seaport network shall
comply with the criteria and specifications in Annex II.’

Decision No 1692/96/EC is hereby amended as follows:

3. Article 19 shall be replaced by the following:

1. Article 11 shall be amended as follows:

(a)

paragraph 3 shall be replaced by the following:

Inland ports shall form part of the network,
‘3.
in particular as points of interconnection between
the waterways referred to in paragraph 2 and
Article 14 and other modes of transport,’

(b)

the following paragraph shall be inserted:

‘3a.

The network shall include inland ports:

(a)

open to commercial traffic;

(b)

(c)

(d)

located on the network of inland waterways as
shown in the outline in Annex I, Section 4;

interconnected with other
transport routes as shown in Annex I;

trans-European

and

equipped with transhipment facilities for com-
bined transport or with an annual freight traffic
volume of not less than 300 000 tonnes.’

2. Article 12 shall be replaced by the following:

‘Article 12

Characteristics

Seaports shall permit

the development of sea
1.
transport and shall constitute shipping links for islands
and the points of interconnection between sea transport
and other modes of transport. They shall provide equip-
ment and services to transport operators. Their infrastruc-
ture shall provide a range of services for passenger and
including ferry services and short-
goods transport,
and long-distance shipping services,
including coastal
shipping, within the Community and between the latter
and third countries.

2.
The trans-European seaport network shall com-
prise seaports situated within the territory of the Com-
munity which are open to commercial traffic and which
comply with the criteria and specifications set out in
Annex II. These ports shall be classified in three categori-
es, A, B and C, according to the volume of traffic they
handle or their location. The seaports in category A
provided for in section 5 of Annex II shall be shown on
the indicative maps in the outline plans in section 5 of
Annex I, on the basis of the most recent port data.

‘Article 19

Specific projects

Annex III contains, by way of indication, the projects
identified in Annexes I and II and in the other provisions
of this Decision, to which the European Councils held in
Essen in 1994 and in Dublin in 1996 attributed particular
importance.’

4. Annex I shall be amended as follows:

(a)

in the contents:

— the title of section 4: ‘Inland waterway network’
shall be replaced by: ‘Inland waterway network
and inland ports’,

— section 5 shall be replaced by the following:

‘Section 5: Seaports — Category A

5.0 Europe

5.1 Baltic Sea

5.2 North Sea

5.3 Atlantic Ocean

5.4 Mediterranean Sea — Western part

5.5 Mediterranean Sea — Eastern part’,

— in section 7:

‘Combined transport network’,

point 7.2 shall be deleted;

(b)

as regards the maps corresponding to sections 4
and 5:

— the map showing section 4 shall be replaced by
those annexed to this Decision. These maps
identify also inland ports which are equipped
with transhipment
for combined
transport and shall replace the map showing
point 7.2,

facilities

— the maps showing section 5 as they appear in
the Annex to this Decision shall be inserted.

9.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 228/3

5. Annex II shall be amended as follows:

Category A:

(a)

the part of section 4 concerning inland ports shall
be replaced by the following:

‘Inland ports

In addition to projects relating to the connections
and inland ports mentioned in Annex I, projects of
common interest will be deemed to include any
infrastructure project corresponding to one or more
of the following categories:

1.

2.

3.

4.

access to the port from waterways;

port infrastructure inside the port area;

other transport infrastructures inside the port
area;

other transport infrastructures linking the port
to other elements of the trans-European net-
work.’

(b)

section 5 shall be replaced by the following:

‘Section 5

Seaports

1. Eligibility criteria for seaports

Seaports with a total annual traffic volume of not
less
or
200 000 passengers;

1 million

tonnes

freight

than

of

Category B:

Seaports which do not meet the criteria for cat-
egory A and have a total annual traffic volume of
between 500 000 and 999 999 tonnes of freight or
between 100 000 and 199 999 passengers;

Category C:

Seaports which do not meet the criteria for categor-
ies A and B and are not used exclusively as fishing
ports or marinas, located on islands which have no
fixed links to the mainland.

2. Specifications for projects of common interest

relating to the seaport network

Seaports shall come within one of the following
categories:

Any project which meets the following specifi-
cations will be deemed to be of common interest:

Project specifications

Port category

I. Promotion of short-distance sea shipping

Infrastructure necessary for the development of short-distance sea and sea-
river shipping

Projects relating to ports in category A

II. Access to ports

Access to ports from sea or inland waterway

Projects relating to ports in categories A
and B

Permanent accessibility of ports in the Baltic Sea situated at approximately
latitude 60° north and beyond, including capital costs for ice-breaking
works during winter

Projects relating to ports in categor-
ies A, B and C

Creation or improvement of hinterland access linking the port to other
elements of the trans-European transport network through rail, road and
inland-waterway connections

Projects relating to ports in category A

Development of existing hinterland access linking the port to other
elements of the trans-European transport network through rail, road and
inland-waterway connections

Projects relating to ports in categories A
and B

C 228/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

9.8.2000

Project specifications

Port category

III. Port infrastructure within the port area

Development of port
efficiency

infrastructure in order to increase intermodal

Upgrading of the port infrastructure, in particular in ports on islands and
in peripheral and outermost regions

Projects relating to ports in categories A
and B

Projects relating to ports in category C

Development and installation of management and information systems
such as EDI (electronic data interchange) or other systems of intelligent
management of goods and passenger traffic using integrated technologies

Projects relating to ports in categor-
ies A, B and C

Development of port installations to receive waste

Projects relating to ports in categor-
ies A, B and C’

6. Annex III shall be amended as follows:

Article 2

(a)

the title shall be replaced by the following:

‘List of the 14 projects adopted by the European
Councils held in Essen in 1994 and in Dublin in
1996’;

(b)

Item 8 (Motorway Lisbon — Valladolid) shall be
replaced by the following:

This Decision shall enter into force on the third day following
that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European
Communities.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

‘8.

Portugal/Spain multimodal link with the rest of
Europe through developing rail, road, sea and
air connections in the following three Iberian
corridors:

Done at

— Galicia (A Corun˜ a)/Portugal (Lisbon)

— Iru´ n/PortugaI (Valladolid-Lisbon)

— Southwest corridor (Lisbon-Seville)’.

For the European Parliament

For the Council

The President

The President

9.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 228/5

ANNEX

ANNEX I

SECTION 4

INLAND WATERWAY NETWORK AND INLAND PORTS

 
TRANS-EUROPEAN TRANSPORT NETWORK OUTLINE PLAN (2010 horizon)

INLAND PORTS AND INLAND WATERWAYS

05/2000

4.0

Inland waterways

Ports

Existing

Planned

Inland/Maritime

Railways

Roads

Inland ports with transhipment facilities for combined transport

Other inland ports

Kilometres

 
TRANS-EUROPEAN TRANSPORT NETWORK OUTLINE PLAN (2010 horizon)

INLAND PORTS AND INLAND WATERWAYS

05/2000

4.1A

Inland waterways

Ports

Existing

Planned

Inland/Maritime

Inland ports with transhipment facilities for combined transport

Other inland ports

Railways

Roads

Kilometres

 
TRANS-EUROPEAN TRANSPORT NETWORK OUTLINE PLAN (2010 horizon)

INLAND PORTS AND INLAND WATERWAYS

05/2000

4.1B

Inland waterways

Ports

Existing

Planned

Inland/Maritime

Inland ports with transhipment facilities for combined transport

Other inland ports

Railways

Roads

Kilometres

 
TRANS-EUROPEAN TRANSPORT NETWORK OUTLINE PLAN (2010 horizon)

INLAND PORTS AND INLAND WATERWAYS

05/2000

4.2

Inland waterways

Ports

Existing

Planned

Inland/Maritime

Inland ports with transhipment facilities for combined transport

Other inland ports

Railways

Roads

Kilometres

 
TRANS-EUROPEAN TRANSPORT NETWORK OUTLINE PLAN (2010 horizon)

INLAND PORTS AND INLAND WATERWAYS

05/2000

4.3

Inland waterways

Ports

Existing

Planned

Inland/Maritime

Inland ports with transhipment facilities for combined transport

Other inland ports

Railways

Roads

Kilometres

 
TRANS-EUROPEAN TRANSPORT NETWORK OUTLINE PLAN (2010 horizon)

INLAND PORTS AND INLAND WATERWAYS

05/2000

4.4

Inland waterways

Ports

Existing

Planned

Inland/Maritime

Inland ports with transhipment facilities for combined transport

Other inland ports

Railways

Roads

Kilometres

 
TRANS-EUROPEAN TRANSPORT NETWORK OUTLINE PLAN (2010 horizon)

INLAND PORTS AND INLAND WATERWAYS

05/2000

4.5

Inland waterways

Ports

Existing

Planned

Inland/Maritime

Inland ports with transhipment facilities for combined transport

Other inland ports

Railways

Roads

Kilometres

 
TRANS-EUROPEAN TRANSPORT NETWORK OUTLINE PLAN (2010 horizon)

SEA PORTS  — CATEGORY A

05/2000

5.0

Inland waterways

Existing

Planned

Ports

Railways

Roads

Kilometres

 
TRANS-EUROPEAN TRANSPORT NETWORK OUTLINE PLAN (2010 horizon)

SEA PORTS — CATEGORY A

05/2000

5.1

Inland waterways

Existing

Planned

Ports

Railways

Roads

Kilometres

 
TRANS-EUROPEAN TRANSPORT NETWORK OUTLINE PLAN (2010 horizon)

SEA PORTS — CATEGORY A

05/2000

5.2

Inland waterways

Existing

Planned

Ports

Railways

Roads

Kilometres

 
TRANS-EUROPEAN TRANSPORT NETWORK OUTLINE PLAN (2010 horizon)

SEA PORTS — CATEGORY A

05/2000

5.3

Inland waterways

Existing

Planned

Ports

Railways

Roads

Kilometres

 
TRANS-EUROPEAN TRANSPORT NETWORK OUTLINE PLAN (2010 horizon)

SEA PORTS — CATEGORY A

05/2000

5.4

Inland waterways

Existing

Planned

Ports

Railways

Roads

Kilometres

 
TRANS-EUROPEAN TRANSPORT NETWORK OUTLINE PLAN (2010 horizon)

SEA PORTS — CATEGORY A

05/2000

5.5

Inland waterways

Existing

Planned

Ports

Railways

Roads

Kilometres

C 228/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

9.8.2000

STATEMENT OF THE COUNCIL’S REASONS

I.

INTRODUCTION

On 5 March 1998 the Commission submitted to the Council a proposal for a Decision of the
European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision No 1692/96/EC as regards seaports,
inland ports and intermodal terminals as well as project No 8 in Annex III (1).

That proposal is based on the first subparagraph of Article 156 of the EC Treaty.

The European Parliament delivered its opinion on the proposal from the Commission on 10 March
1999 (2). The Economic and Social Committee delivered its opinion on 29 April 1998 (3). The
Committee of the Regions delivered its opinion on 17 September 1998 (4).

In the light of the opinion of the European Parliament, the Commission submitted an amended
proposal to the Council on 21 June 1999(5).

On 5 June 2000, the Council adopted a Common Position, in accordance with Article 251 of the
EC Treaty.

II. OBJECTIVES OF THE PROPOSAL

The proposal aims to amend Decision No 1692/96/EC(6) in order to clarify and reinforce the
position of seaports, inland ports and intermodal terminals in the trans-European transport network
(TEN-T).

The Commission points out that the proposal for a decision amending Decision No 1692/96/EC
does not form part of the revision of the guidelines provided for under Article 21 of the Decision.

It results instead from the following statement by the Commission in 1996 when the Decision was
adopted: ‘The Commission will submit in 1997, after consulting interested parties and the Member
States concerned, a report and, if appropriate, a proposal for port projects using an approach similar
to that followed for airports in section 6’ (7).

The Commission reiterates that the TEN-T is conceived as a multimodal infrastructure network
which should gradually combine and incorporate the various forms of transport and national
networks.

In the Commission’s view, the determination of interconnection points including seaports, inland
ports and intermodal terminals is a precondition for the integration of the various forms of transport
into a multimodal network.

The outline plans for the network set out in Annex I to Decision No 1692/96/EC essentially consist
of a series of links. They do not identify the various interconnection points, with the exception of
airports.

(1) OJ C 120, 18.4.1998, p. 14.
(2) OJ C 175, 21.6.1999, p. 110.
(3) OJ C 214, 10.7.1998, p. 40.
(4) OJ C 373, 2.12.1998, p. 20.
(5) Doc. 9459/99 TRANS 154 MAR 72 CODEC 390.
(6) Decision No 1692/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 on Community

guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network (OJ L 228, 9.9.1996, p. 1).

(7) OJ L 228, 9.9.1996, p. 104.

9.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 228/33

The main changes proposed by the Commission therefore concern:

— inclusion in the enacting terms of a general description of

the characteristics of

the

interconnection points (seaports, inland ports and intermodal terminals),

— identification of the interconnection points in the outline plans in Annex I by setting criteria,

— inclusion in Annex II of (new or revised) criteria and specifications for projects of common

interest in this sector.

On that basis, the Commission has identified 300 seaports, 35 inland ports and 210 intermodal
terminals in the combined transport network.

III. ANALYSIS OF THE COUNCIL COMMON POSITION

The Council Common Position comprises a number of amendments to the Commission’s amended
proposal, and the main amendments are given below:

A.

SEAPORTS

Article 1(2) (new Article 12 of the Decision) and Article 1(5)(b) (new Section 5 of Annex II)

1.

In Decision No 1692/96/EC projects of common interest involving seaports are identified
by the criteria in Annex II and can be located in any port of a Member State.

The Commission proposal limits the number of ports included in the network. To this
end, the Commission adds provisions relating to selection criteria to Article 12 of the
Decision (characteristics of seaports). Thus, the trans-European transport network would
include, as represented on the maps in Annex I, only those seaports whose annual traffic
volume is no less than 1 million tonnes freight or 200 000 international passengers,
certain ports on islands and all ports in the outermost regions.

The Commission proposal
therefore stipulates quantitative selection criteria which
automatically rule out the possibility of granting financial aid from the TEN-T to port
infrastructure projects for certain seaports in the Community. The Commission took the
view that the eligibility criteria set for airports in the Decision could not be applied by
analogy to seaports. The Commission stressed that there are many ports of different sizes
and structures competing on the same market and that it is important to avoid giving
support so as not to distort competition.

2. As compared with the Commission proposal, with a view to greater consistency with
what was decided for airports, the Council Common Position therefore includes a higher
number of seaports in the network, as several Member States have many medium-sized
ports that are extremely important to the trans-European network.

In line with the approach taken for airports (Annex II, Section 6), the Common Position
sets out the selection criteria in Annex II rather than in the enacting terms.

In particular, Article 12 provides for seaports to be classified into three categories (A, B
and C) according to the volume of traffic they handle, or according to their location. It
also provides that only the ports in category A are shown on the indicative maps in
Annex I.

C 228/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

9.8.2000

The new section 5 of Annex II classifies ports into categories according to quantitative
criteria or the location of the ports on islands which are not connected to the mainland
by fixed links. It also sets out a table of specifications that a project must meet in order to
be considered of common interest. Thus, the network includes not only seaports whose
total annual traffic volume is no less than 1 million tonnes freight or 200 000 passengers
(category A ports), but all seaports with a total annual traffic volume of no less than
500 000 tonnes or 100 000 passengers (category B ports) and all ports located on islands
not connected to the mainland by fixed links (category C ports). Community aid for
seaports covered by the Decision is awarded according to the specifications met by a given
port project (promotion of short-distance shipping, access to ports, port infrastructure
inside the port area).

B.

INLAND PORTS IN THE COMBINED TRANSPORT NETWORK

Article 1(1) (amended Article 11(3) of the Decision and new Article 11(3a))

The Commission proposal sets four selection criteria for including inland ports in the network,
including one criterion on transhipment facilities for intermodal transport. Following the
approach taken by the European Parliament, the Common Position offers an alternative
solution for this criterion. It provides that if a port is not equipped with transhipment facilities
for combined transport it may nevertheless be included in the network if its annual freight
traffic volume is not less than 300 000 tonnes. Thus, the Common Position adds 200 ports to
the 35 inland ports identified by the Commission proposal. As in the case of seaports, the
Council thought it appropriate to take account of the situation of those Member States which
have a large number of inland ports of major importance to the network.

C.

INTERMODAL TERMINALS AND TRANS-EUROPEAN RAIL FREIGHT FREEWAYS

The Common Position does not endorse the provisions in the Commission proposal concerning:

1.

intermodal terminals (Article 1(4) (new Article 14) and point 1 of the Annex (Annex I,
new outline plans 7.1.0 to 7.1.4)).

The Commission considered only those intermodal terminals located on the rail freeways
indicated in the outline plan of the combined transport network. At this stage, it thought
it better to target only intermodal transport in order to meet one of the objectives set in
Article 1(2) of the Decision. In its explanatory memorandum the Commission states that
consideration could be given to including other terminals (road/road, rail/rail, etc.) in the
Decision when the guidelines are revised.

The Council has stated that the question of the designation of the intermodal terminals is
still being studied at national level. In its opinion, the selection criteria proposed by the
Commission for including intermodal terminals in the combined transport networks are
inadequate. Moreover, account should be taken of regional policies in the Community;

2.

the development of trans-European rail freight freeways open to all operators (Article 1(1)
(Article 10(4), new indent) and Annex, point 2(a), (Annex II, Section 3, third new indent)).

9.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 228/35

In the initial proposal the provisions related to the development of new rail services, in
particular on the basis of trans-European rail freight freeways. However, in the amended
proposal, these provisions no longer relate to services but to the development of trans-
European rail freight freeways open to all operators.

The Council believed that to integrate these freeways would be to depart from the purpose
of the proposal.

IV.

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AMENDMENTS

A.

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AMENDMENTS TAKEN UP BY THE COMMISSION

The Commission included eight of the thirteen amendments submitted by the European Parliament,
of which two verbatim (amendments 5 and 10), two in spirit (amendments 12 and 13) and four in
part (amendments 4, 8, 9 and 11). As for the three amendments designed to delete the provisions
on the trans-European rail freight freeways (amendments 1, 2 and 7) the Commission’s amended
proposal does not delete the provisions, but rewords them to emphasise the development of
infrastructures instead of the improvement of services.

B.

AMENDMENTS BY THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ACCEPTED BY THE COUNCIL

1.

In General

The Council accepted, either in their entirety or in part, five of the European Parliament’s thirteen
amendments, namely amendments 2, 4 (in part), 7, 10 and 13. The Council to a certain extent
adopted the European Parliament’s approach to amendments 3 and 6. As for amendments 1 and
11, the Council agreed with the opinion of the European Parliament regarding deleting the
provisions of the Commission proposal referred to in these amendments, but did not agree with the
alternative wording proposed by the European Parliament.

2. More specifically

(a) Accepted by the Commission

The Council accepted, either in their entirety or in part, three of the eight amendments accepted
by the Commission:

— Article 1(2) of the Common Position (Article 12 of the Decision), part four of amendment 4,

on deleting the new Article 12(2)(c),

— Article 1(5)(b) (Annex II, section 5, paragraph 2, table: point III, third box, of the Decision)

amendment 10,

— Article 1, point 6(b) (Annex III, new item 8 of the Decision), amendment 13.

With regard to amendment 11, the Council,
from the
Commission, agreed to delete the provision on the non-eligibility of port infrastructures, but
did not agree with the alternative wording proposed by the European Parliament (see point IV,
C.1(c)).

following the amended proposal

C 228/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

9.8.2000

(b) Not accepted by the Commission

(i)

Trans-European rail freight freeways

The Council accepted amendments 2 and 7, which provide for the deletion of the references
to trans-European rail freight freeways in the Commission’s initial proposal and are
designed, respectively, to add a fourth indent to Article 10(4) of the Decision and a third
indent to Annex II, section 3.

However, the Council did not accept amendment 1, despite the fact that this amend-
ment also entailed deleting the reference to the said freeways in the seventh recital of the
Commission’s initial proposal. The amendment also provides for alternative wording
which was acceptable to neither the Council nor the Commission (see Point IV, C.1(a)).

(ii)

Inland waterways and inland ports

The Council in part followed the European Parliament’s approach for amendment 3 and 6.

Amendment 3 aims to modify Article 1(2) of the Commission proposal on adding a new
paragraph 3a to Article 11 of the Decision.

Amendment 3 adds a quantitative criterion as an alternative to the fourth selection
criterion provided for in the new paragraph 3a. Ports which meet the first three criteria
and which are equipped with transhipment facilities for intermodal transport, or which
handle an annual freight traffic volume of not less than 500 000 tonnes could thus be
included in the network.

It should be noted that amendment 5 on Article 14(1) of the Decision provides a
definition of intermodal transport, namely combined unitised transport (trailers and
swap bodies).

Article 1(1)(b) of the Common Position accepts the selection criteria proposed by the
European Parliament but provides for a minimum annual traffic volume of 300 000 tonnes
instead of 500 000 and refers to transhipment facilities for combined transport instead of
for intermodal transport.

In the Council’s view, it would be better to allow a larger number of inland ports to be
eligible. It also considered that, at this stage, it would be better to abide by the concept of
combined transport that has already been defined at Community level.

Amendment 6 aims to add a new point (ca) to point 1 of the Annex to the Commission
proposal. This would entail adding the following indications to Annex I, new map 7.2 of
the Decision (inland waterways and inland ports):

— the Elbe-Lübeck canal and the Twente-Mittelland canal,

— a special indication of those inland ports which also perform a seaborne role,

— a special indication of those ports which are not intermodal but which have an

annual volume of freight in excess of 500 000 tonnes.

The Council did not accept the amendment referred to in the first indent above, which
would effectively add two new canals to the combined transport network, firstly, as the
canals in question do not have the minimum technical characteristics provided for in
Article 11(2) of the Decision, and, secondly, as the purpose of this Decision is not to
revise the guidelines but to determine the inland ports.

9.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 228/37

On the other hand, the Council did accept the spirit of the amendments in the second and
third indents above. The new maps illustrating section 4 of the Common Position
(network of inland waterways and inland ports) introduce a new category of ports into
the Decision: sea-river ports. These maps also contain a special indication of those ports
which are not combined transport ports but which handle a freight traffic volume of no
less than 300 000 tonnes.

C.

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AMENDMENTS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE COUNCIL

1. Not accepted by the Commission

The Council did not accept amendments 1, 4 (in part), 8 (in part), 9 (in part) or 11 as set out below.

(a) Trans-European rail freight freeways and the White Paper

The Council did not accept amendment 1, which aims to delete the wording of the seventh
recital of the Commission’s initial proposal (see point IV, B.2(b)) and replace it with a new text
stipulating that:

— the report which the Commission must submit, pursuant to Article 21 of Decision
No 1692/96/EC, on revision of the TEN-T guidelines, will, where appropriate, be followed
by suitable legislative proposals, and reject the idea of a White Paper. In fact, in its 1998
report on the implementation of the guidelines, the Commission stated that its objective
was to ‘launch a broad consultation process leading up to a White Paper on revision to
the guidelines in 1999’,

— the strategic environmental impact assessment referred to in Article 8(2) of the Decision

should incorporate intermodal ports and terminals.

The Council felt that the choice of the form of the report which, pursuant to Article 21(1) of
the Decision, the Commission must submit on possible adjustments to the guidelines, was the
Commission’s responsibility. Pursuant to Article 21(2), further to the report the Commission
will, if necessary, submit appropriate legislative proposals. The Council reiterated that, by virtue
of Article 8(2) referred to above, the Commission must ‘develop appropriate methods of
analysis for strategically evaluating the environmental impact of the whole network’. The
Council stressed that, once these methods have been developed and a strategic analysis
conducted, both the methods and the analysis will apply to the entire network, ports included
(for terminals see point III.C.1).

(b) Seaports

The Council:

(i)

did not accept the first and second parts of amendment 4, on amending Article 1(3) of
the proposal relating to new Article 12(2)(a) and (b) by:

— adding a new criterion on the port’s providing connections with other trans-
European transport routes identified in Annex I. The European Parliament pointed
out that Article 12 of the Decision in force provides that seaports constitute ‘points
of interconnection between sea transport and other modes of transport’,

— changing the quantitative criterion referred to under point (a) in order to raise the
minimum annual volume of freight traffic handled from one to one and a half
million tonnes. The European Parliament considers that this figure is more suitable
for a trans-European network.

C 228/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

9.8.2000

The Council firstly pointed out that several important ports, while constituting points of
interconnection between sea transport and other modes of transport, are not connected
to the routes identified in Annex I.

The Council felt that too few seaports could meet both of the new criteria proposed by
the European Parliament in equal measure. The Council preferred to take a different
approach, as indicated under III A.

(ii) The Council did not accept the third part of amendment 4, designed to amend Article 1(3)
of the Commission’s initial proposal concerning Article 12 of the Decision, by replacing
the second subparagraph of new paragraph 2(b) with a new point (ba).

The Commission’s amended proposal in part follows the approach taken by the European
Parliament on Article 12(3).

The Council thought it preferable to take a different approach for determining the criteria
to be met by seaports before the could be included in the network (see point IIIA).

(c) Port infrastructures (amendments 8 (second and third parts), 9 (second part) and 11)

In amendments 8, 9 and 11, the European Parliament proposes structuring the categories of
projects concerning inland ports in the same way as those concerning seaports.

The purpose of these amendments is to introduce into the Decision a general definition of port
infrastructure in the port area, applicable both to inland ports (second part of amendment 8) and
seaports (second part of amendment 9). These amendments are also intended to make it clear that
port superstructure in inland ports (third part of amendment 8) and seaports (amendment 11) is
not eligible for Community of TEN-T funding.

Furthermore, amendment 11 also aims to delete the provision of the original Commission
proposal which states that infrastructure investments in (sea)port areas are generally not
eligible. The European Parliament considers that, on the contrary, port infrastructure should be
eligible for Community aid.

The Council felt that the definition of port infrastructure proposed by the European Parliament
(second parts of amendments 8 and 9) was too specific and not exhaustive. In its opinion it
would be wise:

— in the case of inland ports, to maintain as they stand the provisions currently in force on
the categories to which infrastructure projects involving inland ports must correspond in
order to be considered of common interest (Article 1(5)(a) amending Annex II, Section 4
of the Decision),

— in the case of seaports, to amend Annex II, section 5, point 1 of the Decision in accordance
with the approach described under III A above, while retaining in the table in another
form the categories of port projects listed in paragraph 1, C and D, of the Decision in
force.

With regard to the alternative wording proposed by the European Parliament on the non-
eligibility of port superstructure (third part of amendment 8 on inland ports and amendment 11
on seaports), the Council also considered that the concept of ‘superstructure’ was not clearly
defined, that there was no need to introduce the concept in this context and that it might cause
uncertainty over the definition of a project.

9.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 228/39

As for the part of amendment 11 concerned with deleting the provision on the non-eligibility
of infrastructure investment in port areas, the Council took the same view as the European
Parliament, which was accepted in the Commission’s amended proposal, namely that this
provision should be deleted. In reality, all projects of common interest,
including those
concerning ports, are in principle eligible for TEN-T financing. Moreover, the specific conditions
to be met in order to be eligible for Community funding are governed more by the financial
regulations applicable in this area than by the Decision.

2. Accepted by the Commission

(a) Combined transport network

The Council:

(i)

did not accept amendment 5,
intended to modify Article 1(4)(a) of the Commission
proposal on new paragraph 1 of Article 14 of the Decision. The European Parliament
proposed that the definition of combined transport contained in the first indent of
paragraph 1 be improved by adding that any initial and/or terminal road haulage should
be as short as possible.

In the second indent of paragraph 1 the European Parliament proposed that terminals
should provide installations for intermodal transport which enable transhipment not only
between the railway network, waterways and roads but also, as provided for by the
Decision in force, between shipping routes and other modes of transport.

Furthermore, the concept of intermodal transport would be defined.

As explained under IVB.2(b)(ii) (on amendment 3), the Council thought it better to leave
the provisions of the Decision in force on the combined transport network, namely those
in Article 14 and Annex II, section 7 as they stood.

With regard to Annex I, Article 1(4) of the Common Position provides that point 7.2 and
the corresponding map should be deleted from Section 7 ‘Combined transport network’
in the table of contents, because the maps in section 4 give adequate special indications of
those inland ports equipped with combined transport facilities which meet the other
criteria in the new Article 11 of the Decision provided for in the Common Position.

(ii)

did not accept amendment 12,
intended to modify point 2(d) of the Annex to the
Commission’s initial proposal on replacing the third indent of section 7 of Annex II to the
Decision.

The European Parliament proposed that the second subparagraph of section 7 be amended
so that it no longer referred to mobile transhipment equipment which, in its opinion, did
not constitute eligible infrastructure.

The European Parliament also proposed amending the third indent so that any project can
be considered of common interest if it is intended to adapt port areas so as to develop or
improve the transfer of merchandise between sea transport, rail and inland waterway
transport in combined transport (road transport would thus be excluded).

The Commission’s amended proposal includes amendment 12.

The Council thought it preferable to leave section 7 as it stood. The second indent still
relates to the setting up of fixed or mobile transhipment equipment. The third indent still
relates to the transfer, not of merchandise, but of containers between sea transport and
rail, inland waterway or road transport.

C 228/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

9.8.2000

(b) Port infrastructures

Inland ports

It should be noted that the Commission’s amended proposal takes up the first part of
amendment 8 and the second and third parts of amendment 8 on the deletion of category 4 from
point B of Section 4 of Annex II.

Amendment 8 concerns Annex II, section 4, ‘Inland ports’, point B4 of the Decision in force,
which is divided into four categories.

The first part of amendment 8 is intended to delete category 3 from point B and replace it with
one of the categories provided for seaports in section 5, point 1D, namely:
‘land transport
infrastructure linking the port to the various ports of the trans-European transport network’.

The second and third parts of amendment 8 aim to delete category 4 of point B and replace it
with two provisions referred to above under IV, C1(c), one of which is on the definition of port
areas, and the other on the non-eligibility of port superstructure.

Seaports

The Council did not accept the first part of amendment 9 involving a drafting change whereby in
Annex II(2)(c)(i) of the Commission’s original proposal (Annex II, section 5, new paragraph 2,
first subparagraph of the Decision) ‘Port and port-related infrastructure projects’ would be
replaced by ‘Infrastructure projects in or in connection with ports’.