Opinion of the Commission pursuant to Article 251(2) (c) of the EC Treaty, on the European Parliament's amendments to the Council's common position regarding the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification, amending the proposal of the Commission pursuant to Article 250(2) of the EC Treaty
Date: 2000-09-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: charges for use of infrastructure, competition, rail transport, transport capacity, transport infrastructure

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 15.09.2000
COM(2000) 572 final

1998/0267 (COD)

OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

pursuant to Article 251 (2) (c) of the EC Treaty,
on the European Parliament's amendments
to the Council's common position regarding the
proposal for a

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
AND OF THE COUNCIL

on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the
use of railway infrastructure and safety certification

AMENDING THE PROPOSAL OF THE COMMISSION
pursuant to Article 250 (2) of the EC Treaty

1.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE PROPOSAL

On 22nd July 1998 the Commission adopted a proposal1 for a Council directive on the
allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway
infrastructure and safety certification.

On 29th September 1998 the Commission submitted this proposal
[1998/0267(COD)].

to the Council

At its plenary session of 10th March 1999, the European Parliament approved the proposal
subject to amendments. After the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty on 1st May 1999,
the Parliament had to re-approve its first reading. The European Parliament finally approved
the Commission’s proposal at its plenary session on 15th September 1999.

The Economic and Social Committee adopted it opinion on 26th May 19992.

On 25th November 1999 the Commission adopted an amended proposal following the first
reading of the European Parliament3.

At its session on 9th and 10th December 1999 the Council reached a political agreement on the
proposal in view of the adoption of a Common Position.

At its session on 28th March 2000 the Council adopted the Common Position4, which was
presented to the European Parliament during its plenary session on 13th April 2000.

At its plenary session on 5th July 2000 the Parliament approved the common position subject
to amendments.

2.

BACKGROUND OF THE COMMISSION’S PROPOSALS

Note: The proposal dealt with in this Communication forms part of
the so-called
“infrastructure package” consisting of a proposal5 for a Council directive amending
Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community’s railways6, a Council Directive
amending Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings7 and the proposal for
a Council Directive on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of
charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification.

With this proposal the Commission intended to define the principles governing the allocation
of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway
infrastructure in view of ensuring market
transparency and efficiency of infrastructure
provision. This proposal complements the proposals for further market opening contained in
the suggested amendments of Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of Community
railways.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

COM(1998) 480 final 22.07.1998.
OJ C 209, 22.07.1999, p. 22.
COM (1999) 616 final
OJ C 178, 27.06.2000, p. 29
COM(1998) 480 final 22.07.1998.
Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991, O.J. L237, 24.08.1991, p.25.
OJ L 143, 27.06.1995, p. 70.

2

3.

MODIFICATIONS INTRODUCED INTO THE TEXT IN RELATION TO THE COMMON
8
POSITION ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL

3.1.

Rejected Amendments

3.1.1. Charging principles

Amendments 6 (Article 7(1)), 8 (Article 7(5)), 10 (Article 8 (1)

The Commission always underlined that one of the final goals of its transport policy is to
foster a fair and efficient infrastructure pricing systems. The objectives are to provide the
incentives for an optimal use of existing infrastructure and for appropriate investment in new
infrastructure. Furthermore, the charging schemes should ensure a level playing field across
transport modes.

Any systematic deviation from the principle of marginal cost pricing would have negative
impacts on the efficiency incentives an infrastructure charging scheme would provide to
market actors. Additionally, many European railway undertakings are unlikely to be able to
bear a full recovery of the costs of business and maintenance of existing facilities.

If a Member State wishes full recovery of the costs incurred by the infrastructure manager, the
set of allowed mark ups should be well defined in order to avoid large tariff differentials
threatening the competitiveness of rail,
in particular of international rail freight. The
Commission considers that the compromise found by the Council in its Common Position
well balances the various positions on the charging principles and therefore wishes to
maintain its formulations.

The Commission therefore rejects the amendments concerned.

3.1.2. Derogations for various Member States

Amendments 3 (Recital 46) and 18 (Article 33)

The Commission agrees with the European Parliament
the principle “one law for
everybody” should be applied as much as possible but finds the derogations proposed well
balanced and proportionate. The Commission wishes to underline that the derogations are
limited in time.

that

The Commission therefore rejects the amendments concerned.

3.1.3.

Scope of undertakings that are allowed access to rail infrastructure (applications)

Amendment 15 (Article 16 (1))

The reference to Article 2(b) would create ambiguity as to the scope of undertakings that are
allowed access to rail infrastructure. It could be interpreted that also other applicants would
have the right to make applications in all Community countries.

The Commission therefore rejects the amendment concerned.

8

Numbering and order of amendments follows document A5-171/2000 (EP minutes of 5/7/2000,
provisional edition)

3

3.1.4. Giving priority to public-benefit transport services in allocating rail capacity

Amendment 12 (Article 14, paragraph 1a (new))

The amendment implies the possibility to provide railway operators with compensation for
financial losses arising from the fact that in some Member States a certain rail capacity must
be allocated in the interest of public transport services. However, this would not be conform
to the aim of this Directive. It is rather to establish a level playing field across modes and
various rail service types. The issue of public service obligations should rather be subject of a
separate regulatory initiative on public service in land transport. Additionally, it should be
recalled that the Directive foresees in its article 22 that priority criteria can be employed to
allocate congested infrastructure capacity.

The Commission therefore rejects the amendment concerned.

3.1.5. Need to increase investment in rail infrastructure capacity

Amendment 2 (Recital 40a (new))

Although the statement made in this amendment may be correct, the Commission does not see
a clear link with the objectives of the Directive under consideration.

The Commission therefore rejects the amendment concerned.

3.1.6. Up-to-date register of undertakings or public entities to whom capacity has been

allocated

Amendment 11 (Article 12)

Although such a register may increase the transparency of the allocation process,
the
information to be published could be considered commercially sensitive. Anyway, in the case
od a complaint this information could be made available to the public authorities handling the
complaint.

The Commission therefore rejects the amendment concerned.

3.2.

Accepted amendments

the
The Commission accepts amendment 22 (Article 2 (b)),
amendment and a more appropriate place in the Directive can be agreed on. The term “access
rights” should be replaced by “train paths”.

if another wording for

The Commission accepts amendment 9 (Article 7 (6a) (new), if the term “infrastructure
manager” is replaced by the term “appropriate body”.

The Commission also accepts amendments 5 (Article 4(2)), 7 (Article 7(3)), 13 (Article 14
(2)), 14 (Article 15 (4)), 16 (Article 17 (5)) and 17 (Article 31).

4.

CONCLUSION

Under the terms of Article 250(2) of the EC Treaty, the Commission amends its proposal
according to the above.

4