WRITTEN QUESTION E-2428/02 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. New trend towards cost-cutting and securing of other advantages by merging the management of railway infrastructure and operations instead of separating them.
Date: 2002-08-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Austria, Community acquis, Switzerland, application of EU law, business management, business policy, common transport policy, demerger, public sector, rail network, rail transport, transport company

6.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52 E/165

(2003/C 52 E/182)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2428/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 August 2002)

Subject: New trend towards cost-cutting and securing of other advantages by merging the management of

railway infrastructure and operations instead of separating them

Can the Commission confirm that, in Austria, since July 2002, the railway company ÖBB has again
1.
been responsible for managing and developing the national rail network because the previous network
operator, Schieneninfrastrukturgesellschaft, has had to cease operations because it had debts of EUR 3,6
billion and was unable to obtain EUR 16 billion for future projects, so that the separation of infrastructure
and operations which the Commission favours no longer exists in Austria?

2.
Is the Commission aware of the article ‘Los Ferrocarriles Suizos basan su modelo en una red
integrada’ (Swiss Railways base their model on an integrated network) in the July/August 2002 issue of the
periodical
‘Via Libre’ published by the Spanish organisation ‘Fundación de los Ferrocarriles Españoles’,
which indicates that in Switzerland the functioning of regional and other railway companies which use
parts of the national network is not regarded as a reason to consider separating the management of the
infrastructure and rail services by the national railway company SBB/CFF/FFS, both because of the safety
problems to which this would give rise on a network where train frequencies are high and express services
operate (Rail 2000 plan) and because of the money which is wasted if too great a capacity of track and
platforms has to be made available for separate companies with different wishes and rolling stock?

3.
Is the Commission furthermore aware of similar problems and considerations in other European
countries where, because of experience to date, there is a trend away from the practice advocated in recent
years whereby ownership, management and control were divided between separate units dealing with
infrastructure and operations, as this is increasingly being replaced by an approach focusing primarily on
more efficient use of resources by means of integrated planning and unified decision-making?

In the light of this change in the prevailing views, what approach is the Commission adopting
4.
towards Member States and railway companies which persistently refuse to introduce organisational
separation or which reverse a previous separation?

5. What implications do these new developments and experiences have for the Commission’s efforts to
separate infrastructure and operations?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(9 October 2002)

According to the information the Commission has at this stage, ÖBB acts as the rail infrastructure
1.
manager based on rail
in Austria.
A political decision on how the infrastructure package Directives (2) will be implemented in national law in
Austria is not yet taken.

legislation, which implemented Council Directive 91/440/EEC1 (1)

2.
The Commission would like to recall that the main principles and provisions of the Community
acquis in the rail sector have been included in the agreement between the EU and Switzerland, which has
come into force on 1 June 2002. It leads this country to consider how this acquis will be translated into its
legislation, hence the public debate taking place on this subject.

3.
The Commission is aware of the problems in the rail sector in the Member States and is of the
opinion that the considerations and justifications that lead to the adoption of the provisions, which
constitute the Community acquis in the rail sector, still fully apply.

The acquis does not require full separation of the infrastructure from transport operations, but the main
principles of the acquis, such as the management independence of railway undertakings; access and transit
rights for railway undertakings with regard to the rail infrastructure of other Member States; independence
independence of the
of the issuing of railway licences and safety certificates to railway undertakings;

C 52 E/166

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2003

allocation and charging of train paths to railway undertakings and appeal bodies are necessary to maintain
the relative share of rail transport in 2010 compared to 1998, which is one of the objectives of the
Common Transport Policy as set out in the White Paper on European Transport Policy 2010 (3). Without
the full application of these principles, the rail sector is likely to accumulate even larger problems than
today, and a modal shift from road to rail will certainly not be achieved.

4. and 5.
The Member States must implement the Directives of the infrastructure package by 15 March
2003 at the latest. The Member States and the Commission work closely together in the framework of the
Regulatory Committee, created by Directives 2001/12/EC and 2001/14/EC, to enable a smooth and
successful implementation of the infrastructure package. It will be up to the operators to use this new
framework to ensure cross border services, which are the key for revitalising the rail freight market.
Meanwhile, the Commission has taken the necessary steps to monitor the railway market (4) in the Member
States and the effects of the implementation of the infrastructure package Directives. In accordance with
Article 10b of Directive 91/440/EC as modified by Directive 2001/12/EC, the Commission will submit a
report in March 2005 to the Parliament and the Council on the implementation, accompanied by suitable
proposals on continuing Community action to develop the railway market and the legal framework
governing it. The latter will not prevent the Commission to undertake the necessary steps if it considers
that a Member State has not fulfilled its legal obligations.

(1) Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the development of the Community’s railways, OJ L 237,

24.8.1991.

(2) Directive 2001/12/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council Directive 91/
440/EEC on the development of the Community’s railways, OJ L 75, 15.3.2001. Directive 2001/13/EC of the
Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of
railway undertakings, OJ L 75, 15.3.2001. Directive 2001/14/EC of
the Council of
26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of
railway infrastructure and safety certification, OJ L 75, 15.3.2001.

the Parliament and of

(3) COM(2001) 370 final.
(4) Article 10b of Directive 91/440/EEC as amended by Directive 2001/12/EC.

(2003/C 52 E/183)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2429/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 August 2002)

Subject: Authorisation of unsolicited e-mail advertising (‘spamming’) contrary to provision for opt-in

system in new directive

1.
Is the Commission aware that, on 18 July 2002, giving judgment in an appeal case between internet
provider XS4ALL and the Ab Fab Interactive Media Group, Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled that sending
large quantities of unsolicited commercial advertising material by e-mail (‘spamming’) was lawful?

2.
How can this judgment be reconciled with the common position with a view to the adoption of the
Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the processing of personal data and
the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector, which was considered at second and
last reading by the European Parliament on 29 and 30 May 2002 and which,
in common with the
Council’s common position, provides for the opt-in system, which means that prior consent must be
obtained from recipients before unsolicited commercial communications can be sent to them by e-mail,
fax or automated calling system?

3.
Does the adoption of this directive mean that a judgment along the lines indicated in paragraph 1
will no longer accord with the legislation in force once Member States have complied with their
obligations under the directive within the two-year time limit?

4.
If so, would it be possible to inform courts about the directive in advance and encourage them to
apply the opt-in system in their judgments even before the requirements of the directive acquire force of
law?