Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the granting of aid for the coordination of transport by rail, road and inland waterway"
Date: 2001-01-24
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: aid system, inland waterway transport, liberalisation of the market, rail transport, road transport

C 123/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

25.4.2001

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European
Parliament and of the Council concerning the granting of aid for the coordination of transport
by rail, road and inland waterway’

(2001/C 123/07)

On 15 September 2000 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 71 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 7 December 2000. The rapporteur
was Mr Kielman.

At its 375th plenary session of 24 and 25 January 2001 (meeting of 24 January 2001) the Economic and
Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 77 votes in favour, with one abstention.

1.

The Commission proposal

1.1.
Thirty years ago, on 15 June 1970, the Council adopted
Regulation (EEC) No 1107/70 on the granting of aids for
transport by rail, road and inland waterway. The purpose of
that regulation was to specify what amounted to ‘coordination’
within the meaning of Article 73 of the EC Treaty so as to
make clear the boundaries between an exception (usually
administration of the rail sector in particular) and the general
rules.

1.4.
The dates for full liberalisation are as follows: inter-
national road haulage: 1 July 1998; road passenger transport:
1 June 1996; inland waterway transport: 1 January 2000; and
combined transport: 1 July 1993. Rail liberalisation is pressing
ahead, with the discussion now focusing on the railway
infrastructure package.

2. General comments

1.2.
Since then the different sectors have become liberalised,
at varying speeds and to varying extents. Regulation (EEC)
No 1107/70 has been amended in a somewhat piecemeal
fashion, but, in the interests of simplicity and greater clarity,
the time has now come to replace it with a new regulation.

Aid granted by a Member State which distorts or
2.1.
threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertak-
ings or the production of certain goods is incompatible with
the common market and thus prohibited under the EC Treaty,
insofar as this aid affects trade between Member States.

The new regulation reflects how the transport market has
developed over time as a result of the application of Article 73
of the EC Treaty. This article also has a role to play in
connection with the financing of infrastructure.

The proposed regulation therefore envisages a comprehensive
exception for aid for the operation and/or development of
transport infrastructure which benefits infrastructure managers
and, in the freight sector, aid for the benefit of users who are
thereby compensated for the unpaid costs of competing
modes.

State financing of infrastructure open to all potential
2.2.
users and managed by the State does normally not fall under
the EC Treaty since no advantage is conferred on a single
undertaking. An example is transport infrastructure financing
in the Member States. Thus, the construction and management
the
of
proposed regulation.

infrastructure fall outside the scope of

transport

2.3.
A specific State aid approach is necessary in transport
because of the need for State intervention to maintain transport
services which serve town and country planning purposes and
also have to meet social and environmental concerns.

1.3.
The specific market access legislation required under
Article 71 of the EC Treaty has delayed liberalisation in land
transport. Full transport market liberalisation is thus still to be
achieved.

Under Article 73 of the EU Treaty, the coordination of
2.4.
transport and compensation for the provision of public
services are considered aid-worthy.

25.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 123/35

2.5.
In fact, the concept of aid within the meaning of the
proposed regulation refers to the need for State intervention
arising (i) in the absence of competitive markets or (ii) in the
presence of market difficulties such as negative externalities or
public goods.

2.11.
In its opinion on the Commission White Paper Fair
Payment for Infrastructure Use: A phased approach to a
common transport infrastructure charging framework in the
EU (COM(1998) 466 final), the Committee noted that, from
the point of view of equal treatment of transport modes, it is
desirable to implement the charging principles uniformly, at
exactly the same time and, as far as possible, at source (1).

2.6.
The Commission states that the notion of external
costs is not yet defined in Community law, but evidently feels
that non-allocation of these costs results in market difficulties.

The EC Treaty also grants an aid exemption for the
2.7.
financing of public services. In this connection, public service
obligations are deemed to be obligations which a transport
undertaking would not assume if it were considering only its
commercial interests. Council Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69
of 26 June 1969 establishes criteria for fixing the amount of
State compensation permitted in rail, road and inland water-
way transport when such public service obligations are
imposed.

2.8.
Under Article 87(3)c and drawing on Article 73 of the
EC Treaty, the European Commission may authorise State aid
to foster the development of certain economic activities where
the aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an
extent contrary to the common interest. With a view to
promoting investment by transport enterprises in intermodal
transport, the discussions on the abolition of the ‘de minimis’
rule in respect of transport enterprises should be speeded up.
This rule lays down the threshold figure below which measures
taken by the public authorities are not regarded as ‘state aid’.

2.12.
The reality is, however, that Member States still
recover infrastructure costs for the various land transport
modes in different ways and to different degrees. Furthermore,
there is not yet any Community legislation which harmonises
methods for calculating infrastructure access charges within or
across land transport modes.

2.13.
The Committee feels that the Commission should
concentrate on establishing the internal and external costs of
each transport mode instead of focusing in advance on State
aid to compensate for the unpaid costs of competing transport
modes.

2.14.
Furthermore, the Committee believes that the pro-
cedure for obtaining State aid involves complicated, laborious
reporting to the Commission. This considerably exacerbates
the administrative burden, as does the whole of the planned
notification and information procedure.

2.15.
Of course, the modal shift which the Commission
wishes to bring about must certainly be examined in the light
of its social and economic consequences.

2.9.
The proposed regulation relates to the coordination of
rail, road and inland waterway transport. It does not cover
maritime transport facilities, but does take in transhipment
between land transport modes, regardless of the location of
the corresponding transhipment facilities. All transhipment
involving maritime transport, even in combination with land
transport modes, falls outside the regulation’s scope.

The Committee feels that the Commission is moving
2.16.
in the opposite direction. The Commission’s justification for
the proposed regulation is that rail
liberalisation is not
complete and no harmonised charging mechanism has yet
been established to compensate for the unpaid costs of
transport modes.

2.10.
To date, legal exceptions for State aid have existed
under Council Regulation (EEC) No 1107/70 only for direct
investments in inland waterway and combined transport
terminals. These were, however, specific exceptions which are
not conducive to an integrated approach to land transport
infrastructure.

The Committee thus feels that a logical move would
2.17.
first of all be to liberalise the railways to the same degree as
other land transport modes and, as set out in point 2.12 above,
to work out clear criteria for allocating costs to transport
modes, instead of a complicated, time-consuming and debat-
able aid mechanism as proposed in the draft regulation.

The Commission considers that these specific exceptions must
be replaced by a general infrastructure exception.

(1) OJ C 116, 28.4.1999, p. 28.

C 123/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

25.4.2001

3. Conclusion

The Committee considers that this proposal for a

3.1.
regulation is premature.

3.2.
It is desirable first of all to secure the same degree of
liberalisation across the various transport modes in order
ensure that each mode is treated equally.

out the relative proportion of the various internal and external
cost elements before putting forward a proposal for a regu-
lation which bases aid for a specific transport mode on the
unpaid costs of competing modes.

The Committee feels that the social and economic

3.4.
consequences of the proposal have not been addressed.

3.3. Moreover, in the light of the Committee opinion on
the transport white paper, the Commission should first map

3.5.
In conclusion, the Committee is convinced that adop-
tion of this draft will result in the introduction of an extremely
complicated and bureaucratic system of checks.

Brussels, 24 January 2001.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on ‘eEurope 2002 — An information society for
all — Draft Action Plan’

(2001/C 123/08)

On 29 May 2000, the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on ‘eEurope 2002 — An Information
society for all — Draft Action Plan’.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 9 January 2001. The rapporteur
was Mr Koryfidis.

At its 378th plenary session held on 24 and 25 January 2001 (meeting of 24 January) the Economic and
Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 80 votes to three, with one abstention.

1.

Introduction

The European Commission launched its ‘eEurope —
initiative in December

1.1.
An Information Society for all (1)’
1999 (2).

1.2.
It was motivated ‘by the growing realisation that the
application of digital technologies has become the key factor
‘a “new
for growth and employment’,

the evidence that

(1) http://europa.eu.int/comm/information–society/eeurope/news/

index–en.htm.

(2) The progress of the initiative is presented in the appendix (point 1).

economy” or e-economy is emerging (3), mainly driven by the
Internet (4)’, and the fact that ‘in spite of Europe’s lead in certain
digital technologies, e.g. mobile communications and digital
TV, the uptake of computers and the Internet in Europe
remains comparatively low’ (5).

(3) For the term ‘new economy’ and for more general information on
the subject, please see: http://europa.eu.int/comm/information–
society/eeurope/documentation/progrep/pr–annex2–en.htm.
(4) http://europa.eu.int/comm/information–society/eeurope/documen

tation/progrep/pr–text–en.htm (Introduction).

(5) See relevant table in the annex to the Commission’s progress
‘eEurope: An Information Society For All’, electronic
report;
address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/information–society/eeurope/
documentation/progrep/pr–annex2–en.htm.