Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on:the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on safety on the Community's railways and amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings and Directive 2001/14/EC on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification,(COM(2002) 21 final — 2002/0022 (COD))the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 96/48/EC and Directive 2001/16/EC on the interoperability of the trans-European rail system,(COM(2002) 22 final — 2002/0023 (COD))the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Railway Agency, and(COM(2002) 23 final — 2002/0024 (COD))the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community's railways(COM(2002) 25 final — 2002/0025 (COD))
Date: 2002-09-19
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: Community certification, EU office or agency, charges for use of infrastructure, rail network, rail transport, technical standard, trade licence, trans-European network, transport company, transport safety

14.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/131

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on:

— the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on safety on the
Community’s railways and amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway
undertakings and Directive 2001/14/EC on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity
and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification’,

(COM(2002) 21 final — 2002/0022 (COD))

— the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending
Council Directive 96/48/EC and Directive 2001/16/EC on the interoperability of the trans-
European rail system’,

(COM(2002) 22 final — 2002/0023 (COD))

— the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a

European Railway Agency’, and

(COM(2002) 23 final — 2002/0024 (COD))

— the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending

Council Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community’s railways’

(COM(2002) 25 final — 2002/0025 (COD)) (1)

(2003/C 61/22)

On 21 and 22 February 2002 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Articles 71(1) and 156 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned
proposals.

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 2 September 2002. The
rapporteur was Mr Konz.

At its 393rd Plenary Session of 18/19 September 2002 (meeting of 19 September) the Economic and
Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 118 votes to eight with 12 abstentions.

1.

Introduction

In its Resolution on the White Paper A Strategy for
1.1.
revitalising the Community’s railways of 13 January 1998 the
European Parliament argued in favour of upgrading the
railways to a priority means of transport and for gradual
liberalisation of access to European railway infrastructure,
subject to the provision of social flanking measures.

( 1) The second railway package, which is submitted by the Com-

mission for decision, also includes:
a)

b)

a Communication from the Commission to the Council and
the European Parliament — Towards an integrated European
railway area (COM(2002) 18 final, and
a Recommendation for a Council Decision authorising the
Commission to negotiate the conditions for Community
accession to the Convention concerning International Car-
riage by Rail (COTIF) (COM(2002) 24 final),

1.2.
The Stockholm and Gothenburg European Councils
assigned priority objective status to the continued reform of
the European rail transport sector by means of a second
package of measures to be drawn up by the end of 2001.

1.3.
The Commission’s White Paper of 12 September
2001 (2) mapped out the path. In the strategy proposed by the
Commission for re-establishing a balance between the various
modes of transport the revitalisation of the rail sector plays an
important part.

Despite numerous positive experiences, new market
1.4.
initiatives and the restructuring of long-established railway
undertakings in a number of Member States, the Commission
feels that the process of change is not progressing fast enough,
given what is at stake. The Commission points out that the
railways’ share of overland goods transport has fallen from
35 % in 1970 to 14 % today.

which the EESC has taken into account in its opinion in view of
their importance.

(2) COM(2001) 370 final.

C 61/132

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.3.2003

further

The precondition for

1.5.
the
implementation in national law (deadline: 15 March 2003) of
the first railway package, also known as the infrastructure
package, which comprises Directives 2001/12, 13 and 14
(EC) (1). These directives spell out the role and responsibilities
of the various rail-sector players:

initiatives

is

a)

b)

the railway undertakings are responsible for transporting
passengers and goods by rail;

the infrastructure managers are responsible for building
and maintaining infrastructure, ensuring that services can
be operated as safely as possible and providing a) with
access to railway infrastructure under clearly defined,
non-discriminatory and appropriate conditions;

c)

the regulatory bodies are responsible for settling any
disputes between a) and b).

The relations between these three players must be part of a
legal framework which guarantees the transparency of the
information provided to operators, legal certainty in contrac-
tual relationships and neutrality in the fundamental tasks:

a)

licensing of railway undertakings;

b)

allocation of infrastructure capacity and

c)

levying of charges for the use of infrastructure.

Directive 2001/16/EC (2) on the interoperability of the
1.6.
conventional rail system is to be integrated into this body of
rules.

The Commission feels that the problems of the rail
1.7.
sector, which still suffers from the conservatism and protec-
tionism of another century (with cross-border rail traffic still
mainly managed in the old way, by national operators handing
over trains and responsibilities at the borders), must be tackled
more speedily with the aim of establishing an integrated
European railway area.

In order to achieve this objective as rapidly as possible
1.8.
and implement the principle of free movement of services, the
Commission proposes that all railway undertakings established
and licensed in the European Union should have access in all
Member States to the railway network for both domestic
freight services (i.e. regular domestic transport services perfor-
med by foreign railway undertakings, including cabotage, i.e.
occasional domestic transport services combined with cross-
border services) and cross-border freight services.

As preconditions for this the Commission sets out to

1.9.
ensure:

a) maintenance of the safety standard of European rail
transport, which is generally very high, particularly in
relation to its main competitor, road transport;

b) more rapid progress on interoperability, as the lack
of
this on the European rail network is, alongside
infrastructure bottlenecks, one of the main obstacles to
pan-European rail services;

c)

establishment of an integrated European railway area.

To this end the Commission has simultaneously
1.10.
submitted to the Council and the European Parliament five
proposals in the form of legislative measures which will pass
through the legislative process together as the second railway
package. The aim of the package is to iron out legal and
technical shortcomings.

2. General comments

2.1.
Ten months after the entry into force of the first
railway package, the infrastructure package, the Commission
is submitting a second package of measures.

2.2.
In its Communication entitled Towards an integrated
European railway area (3) which accompanies the legislative
texts the Commission lists three essential types of measure for
revitalising the railways:

a)

b)

a fair system for charging all modes of transport for the
use of infrastructure;

development of the trans-European transport network,
with the emphasis on railways, and removal of bottle-
necks in the European rail network;

c)

completion of the legal framework.

The EESC also draws attention to the key importance
2.3.
of the harmonisation of labour and social
legislation as a
contribution to balanced competition between rail, road and
inland waterway.

Even if there is some progress in this area following adoption
of Directives 2000/34/EC and 2002/15/EC, which must be
implemented in national law by 1 August 2003 and 23 March
2005 respectively, excessive working hours and inadequate
rest periods will continue to be prevalent for road haulage
drivers and inland waterway workers.

( 1) OJ L 75, 15.3.2001, pp. 1, 26, 51 — ESC Opinion OJ C 209,

22.7.1999, p. 22.

( 2) OJ L 110, 20.4.2001, p. 1, ESC Opinion OJ C 204, 18.7.2000,

p. 13.

(3) COM(2002) 18 final.

14.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/133

The EESC also considers that the application of labour and
social legislation should be encouraged and harmonised by
means of appropriate inspections and sanctions.

In an own-initiative Opinion of 25 February 1987 (1) the EESC
called for ‘the harmonisation of certain social provisions
governing working conditions between the different modes of
transport’.

2.4.
The second railway package now submitted by the
Commission deals exclusively with the third issue, the com-
pletion of the legal framework. In the Communication the
Commission has already announced the submission of a third
package.

2.5.
According to the Commission, the second package will
contain a series of urgently needed measures to flank the
opening up of the international rail freight market introduced
by the first package (the infrastructure package).

The most important of the proposed measures, the Directive
on safety on the Community’s railways, is designed to maintain
the high level of safety in the rail sector.

2.6.
It is also clear that a European internal rail transport
market will remain a theoretical concept until interoperability
of the European rail network is achieved. The adaptation of
the Directive on the interoperability of the trans-European
high-speed rail system (Directive 96/48/EC (2) to bring it into
line with the Directive on interoperability of
the trans-
European conventional rail system (Directive 2001/16/EC)
with regard to staff qualifications and the health and safety of
workers, with the social partners being consulted, is welcome.
It is also recognised that interoperability does not only concern
technical systems but also the staff working in and with that
system. The definition of necessary qualifications is only one
aspect of staff
interoperability. This approach is entirely
consistent with the process, initiated by the Lisbon European
Council, of comprehensively involving the European social
partners at all levels.

2.7.
A European Railway Agency is a useful instrument to
flank and support both safety in the rail sector and the
achievement of interoperability. But this must not mean the
creation of a new bureaucracy which sets up obstacles rather
than providing support. Moreover, it will be effective only if
all players are consulted.

The proposed new amendment of Regulation 91/
2.8.
440/EEC (3) raises the question of the appropriateness of
accelerating the opening of the market for goods transport on

the European rail network. From 15 March 2003 there will be
open market access for international rail freight transport on
the trans-European rail freight network (TERFN), including
port feeders. Thus, over the next six months, 50 000 km, or
some 80 % of the EU rail network, will be opened up.

From 15 March 2008 there is to be free and non-discriminat-
ory access for international goods transport to the entire
European rail network.

2.9.
The opening of the market introduced by the infra-
structure package is the result of a laborious compromise
process between the Council and the European Parliament.
During the discussions it became clear that capacity bottle-
necks and a need for high levels of investment in order to
achieve technical interoperability posed real obstacles. It was
also clear that further measures were needed in relation to rail
transport safety and staff interoperability.

2.10.
To this end, the EESC feels that experience should
first be gathered of the implementation of the liberalisation
measures which entered into force only on 15 March 2001
and which must be implemented in national law by 15 March
2003. The proposals put forward by the Commission in the
Directive on safety on the Community’s railways (4) will in
particular require the reorganisation of powers and responsi-
bilities in a number of areas, and a number of new authorities
and competent bodies will have to be established without
delay and made operational.

2.11.
The conditions for a liberalised internal rail transport
market quoted in the Commission’s communication will need
to be created: a fair system of charging all modes of transport
for the use of infrastructure, the development of the trans-
European transport network, with the emphasis on railways,
the removal of the bottlenecks in the European rail network
and the completion of the legal framework. The infrastructure
package contained some far-reaching decisions to which the
railway undertakings and railway workers first need to adapt.

3. Comments on the individual legislative texts

3.1. Market access — amendment of Directive 91/440/EEC (5)

3.1.1.
The proposed new amendment of Directive 91/440/
EEC is aimed above all at accelerating the liberalisation process
in the international rail freight sector.

( 1) Own-initiative Opinion on the stocktaking and prospects for a

common rail policy, OJ C 105, 21.4.1987, p. 13.

( 2) OJ L 235, 17.9.1996, p. 6, ESC Opinion OJ C 397, 31.12.1994,

p. 8.

( 3) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991, p. 25, ESC Opinion OJ C 225, 10.9.1990,

p. 2.

(4) COM(2002) 21 final.
(5) COM(2002) 25 final.

C 61/134

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.3.2003

3.1.2.
The first railway package (infrastructure) and the
second package together require the establishment in many
Member States of a number of authorities, competent bodies
and new areas of responsibility (see Article 20(1) of the
proposal for a safety directive):

— regulatory body (Directive 2001/14/EC)

— charging body (Directive 2001/14/EC)

— allocation body (Directive 2001/14/EC)

— notified body (Directive 96/48/EC and Directive 2001/

16/EC)

— safety authority (proposal for a Safety Directive)

— accident investigation body (proposal for a Safety Direc-

tive)

as well as the European Railway Agency (proposal
regulation).

for a

The railway sector is to be reorganised in the
3.1.3.
short term. People working in the industry know that the
establishment of new bodies, the adoption of new legislation
and its implementation and supervision will take a number of
years, particularly if the aim is complete restructuring of the
sector. In an extremely safety-sensitive system such as rail
transport, with millions of passengers and large quantities of
goods being transported daily, this is,
in the absence of a
proactive policy for the railways and investment in them an
immense undertaking, and there are likely to be considerable
practical difficulties.

3.1.4.
requirements.

Particular attention will need to be paid to safety

3.1.5. With the exception of Article 1(2), which proposes
that Article 7(2), as it appears in Directive 2001/12/EC, be
dropped, all the other changes relate to abandonment of the
principle of gradual market opening for international goods
transport on the European railway network.

Under the gradual approach, market opening for
3.1.6.
international rail freight is required from 15 March 2003 in
respect of the trans-European rail freight network (TERFN), as
defined in the annex to the directive, and from 15 March 2008
in respect of the whole European rail network.

3.1.7.
The new Commission proposals would mean bring-
ing forward market opening for international goods transport
on the whole European rail network by one or two years,
depending on the length of the legislative procedure. The
Commission proposals also provide for the introduction of
‘cabotage’: occasional domestic transport services combined
with cross-border services.

all railway undertakings based and authorised in the European
Union should have access to the railway network for domestic
and cross-border rail freight services in all Member States.

3.1.9.
Article 7(1) of Directive 91/440/EEC, as amended by
Directive 2001/12/EC, requires the Member States to lay down
safety standards and rules and to ensure that their application
is monitored. These provisions are fleshed out in the Com-
mission’s proposal for a Directive on railway safety (1) In the
interests of legal consistency this article should be dropped
from the Directive on market access. This change alone will
not, however, necessarily require amendment of Directive 91/
440/EEC or Directive 2001/21/EC. Rather, it can be done via
the safety directive itself. This procedure is already used in
relation to Article 27 of the draft safety directive, which
proposes the amendment of Directive 95/18/EC (2).

3.1.10.
of:

In general terms, the EESC points out that in view

— the requirements for restructuring of the national railway
systems arising from the measures adopted in the frame-
work of the railway infrastructure package,

— the delay in adopting and implementing the provisions

for the harmonisation of safety rules, and

— the lack of harmonisation of social conditions for cross-

border railway workers,

it would be premature to accelerate the opening-up of the
market at this point, without the effects of the measures
already adopted being known.

3.2. Amendment of Directives 96/48/EC and 2001/16/EC on
the interoperability of the trans-European rail system (3)

3.2.1.
The proposed amendments to the two interoperabi-
lity directives are a further development, an adaptation to
the experience gathered and an approximation of the two
directives, taking into account staff qualifications and worker
health and safety, including consultation of the social partners
in the Sectoral Dialogue Committee established by Com-
mission Decision 98/500/EC (4). The scope of the directive is
also extended to cover the whole conventional rail network.
The drawing-up of technical specifications for interoperability
(TSIs) is also entrusted to the new European Railway Agency.

(1) COM(2002) 21 final.
(2) OJ L 143, 27.6.1995, p. 70, ESC Opinion, OJ C 393, 31.12.1994,

3.1.8.
The Commission proposes that, from the date of
implementation of the proposal for a directive in national law,

p. 56.

(3) COM(2002) 22 final.
(4) OJ L 255, 12.8.1998, p. 27.

14.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/135

3.2.2.
The EESC welcomes these adjustments in principle,
whilst making comments on a number of individual articles,
as the interlinking and interoperability of the European rail
network will provide easier access to this transport system and
improve traffic flow. It calls, however, for transparency and
openness with regard to the future role of the AEIF (1), which
at present acts as the joint representative body made up of
representatives of UIC, UNIFE and IUPT (2). This question also
arises in relation to the new European Railway Agency, which
will be a public body with a public-sector remit.

3.2.3.
The EESC would like to point out that the achieve-
ment of interoperability is a long and costly process. The
necessary financial resources will have to be made available.
The Commission and the Member States have a particular
responsibility here, as the achievement of the objectives of
European rail policy depends to a great extent on the progress
made on interoperability and the elimination of bottlenecks in
the European rail network.

3.2.4.
It should also be borne in mind that the requirements
for interoperability of the high-speed network on the one
hand and the conventional rail network on the other differ
significantly. The multiple use of infrastructure by passenger
and goods trains, i.e. trains of differing speed, composition
and tonnage, is a feature of the conventional rail network.
the transport of dangerous goods takes place
Moreover,
exclusively on the conventional rail network.

3.2.5.3. Article 1(3)(b) (New Article 5(3)(h))

Failure to take account of qualifications and workplace health
and safety was a shortcoming of Directive 96/48/EC. This
urgently needs to be remedied. The TSIs already adopted under
the directive should be revised/amplified in order to take
account of these factors.

3.2.5.4. Article 1(4) (Amendment of Article 6(7))

The EESC welcomes consultation of the social partners on
staff-related issues. This consultation should not, however,
take place only at the end of the process of drawing up the
relevant TSIs. The drawing up of qualification, health and
safety standards at European level
is a considerable task
involving not only technical expertise but also expert know-
ledge of railway staff and employment. The European social
partners should therefore be involved throughout the process
through the Sectoral Dialogue Committee.

3.2.5.5. Article 1(8) (Amendment of Article 14(3))

It needs to be made clear here when this requirement applies
to the infrastructure manager and when its applies to the
railway undertaking. It should also be made clear which state
body is responsible.

3.2.5. A m e n d m e n t o f D i r e c t i v e 9 6 / 4 8 / E C

3.2.5.6. Article 1(16) (Insertion of new Article 22(a)(1))

3.2.5.1. Article 1(1) (Amendment of Article 1)

The scope of the directive is extended to cover the maintenance
of components of the high-speed network. This ought logically
also to apply to staff qualifications and health and safety
requirements. A reference to maintenance staff should there-
fore be added to Article 1.

In relation to the register of infrastructure, it should be made
clear whether what
is required is a classification of the
infrastructure or rather a list of all the technical details of the
infrastructure.

3.2.6. A m e n d m e n t o f D i r e c t i v e 2 0 0 1 / 1 6 / E C

3.2.5.2. Article 1(3)(a) (Amendment of Article 5(1))

3.2.6.1. Article 2(2) (Insertion of new Article 1(3))

It is not clear what is meant by technical specifications for the
carriage of high value-added goods or applications necessary
in order to interconnect the high-speed rail system with
airports. Clarification is needed.

This paragraph should be expanded to state that from 1 January
2008 an inventory of the relevant conventional rail infrastruc-
ture will be drawn up and published.

3.2.6.2. Article 2(5) (Article 6(9))

( 1) AEIF: European Association for Railway Interoperability.
( 2) UIC: International Union of Railways. UNIFE: Union of European
Railway Industries. IUPT: International Union of Public Transport.

The social partners should not be consulted only after
submission of a completed draft TSI, but rather they should be
involved throughout the process of drawing up the TSI.

C 61/136

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.3.2003

3.3.

Proposal
railways (1)

for a Directive on safety on the Community’s

3.3.2.
carefully and regularly reviewed.

The provisions of the safety directive need to be

3.3.1.
The EESC wholeheartedly welcomes the safety direc-
tive submitted by the Commission. It is one of the precon-
ditions for ensuring the highest possible level of safety of rail
transport
in a European internal market. On reading the
Commission draft three main points arise:

a)

b)

c)

The proposed provisions rest
to a large extent on
measures which are initially to be implemented in the
Member States. Only in the second phase (the Com-
mission proposes a period of five years after the entry
into force of the directive) are European harmonisation
of safety targets and procedures or a European safety
licence to be envisaged. Even then some areas (staff
(Article 12(1) and (2), aspects of safety certification
(Article 10(2)(a) and (3)) will straight away be dealt with
by means of mutual recognition. This raises the possibility
of gaps and inconsistencies in the European approach to
safety.

The Commission itself quotes statements by safety experts
that a sharper separation between rolling stock and rail
infrastructure and in the organisational and regulatory
superstructure will bring with it greater risks, necessitat-
ing clear cooperation between all players. It should not
be forgotten that the European legislation calls existing
operational practices into question, thus placing on the
European legislative authorities a heavy responsibility for
the careful shaping of the safety framework.

However, the Commission also points out that experience
in Member States which have completely separated
infrastructure management and traffic management
shows that this division of operational responsibility can
indeed be implemented without endangering the system’s
safety.

The importance of staff and staff qualifications and other
skills in relation to safety is referred to at several points
in the safety directive, as well as in the interoperability
directives and the European Railway Agency regulation.
the worker representatives at national and
And yet
European level are assigned a secondary role. The safety
directive does not even mention the European social
partners. Provision is made for late-stage consultation in
the interoperability directive and the European Railway
Agency regulation. This is far from sufficient.

( 1) COM(2002) 21 final.

3.3.3.
The EESC would make the following specific com-
ments and recommendations in relation to the proposal for a
safety directive:

3.3.3.1.
its own
The European Community should set
target for the level of railway safety in the European internal
market. The proposal for a directive should begin with a
chapter entitled Objectives, stating that the aim should be the
highest possible level of safety.

3.3.3.2. Article 3(c) Railway undertakings

The definition of ‘railway undertaking’ should be identical with
the definition in Directive 91/440/EEC, as it appears in
Article 1(4) of Directive 2001/12/EC of 15 March 2001. This
is necessary in the interests of legal certainty. If the provisions
of the safety directive are intended to be applied to undertak-
ings which have no licence, this should be made clear in a
separate paragraph.

3.3.3.3. Article 3(k) Serious accident

There should be a definition of near-misses here, as referred to
in Annex I. This is important for accident prevention.

3.3.3.4. Article 4(1) Development and improvement of

railway safety

Here too the goal of the highest possible level of safety should
be set for the Member States. The general goal should be the
prevention of all accidents. The Commission proposal on the
other hand makes the prevention of serious accidents the
priority. It is important that these high requirements should
be made a general objective, as Article 5 on common safety
targets (CST) and common safety methods (CSM) provides for
the drawing-up of harmonised minimum levels of safety on
the basis of risk acceptance criteria and in accordance with
cost-benefit considerations. In an internal market with fifteen
and more different levels of national risk acceptance there is a
danger of lowest-common-denominator harmonisation.

3.3.3.5. Article 4(2), second paragraph

Infrastructure managers and railway undertakings are not only
responsible for the safety of users, customers and third parties,
but also for that of their own staff. A reference to staff should
be added. Account is correctly taken of staff in Article 5(3)(a).

14.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/137

3.3.3.6. Article 5 Common safety targets, common safety

3.3.3.9. Article 11 Application requirements

methods

A theoretical approach is set out here which leaves many
questions unanswered. The common safety targets and
methods should, however, be the cornerstone of a harmonised
safety system. The details are left entirely up to the Member
States, and an attempt is to be made within five years to
introduce European harmonisation.

The EESC has doubts about the scope allowed for cost-benefit
analyses in the formulation of safety targets, as well as about
the risk acceptance provision. European dialogue between the
social partners is particularly necessary in relation to the risk
acceptance issue and the methods and content of cost-benefit
analyses. It seems inappropriate first to call on the Member
States to introduce national systems and only then to introduce
European harmonisation.

3.3.3.7. Article 9 (1) and (3) Safety management

Railway undertakings and infrastructure managers are to
establish safety management systems on their own, individual
responsibility. It is not clear, however, how safety management
and emergency measures are to be coordinated, particularly in
the case of cross-border trains, even if
the infrastructure
manager is declared responsible for coordination with the
other railway undertakings. This is everyday practice in an
integrated railway undertaking.

In Article 11(2) the clause ‘in order to facilitate the establish-
ment of new railway undertakings and the submission of
applications from railway undertakings from other Member
States’ should be deleted. This is a general objective of
Community rail policy. The safety directive should provide
assistance to all in obtaining safety certificates.

3.3.3.10. Article 12 Training and certification of train staff

Article 12(1) deals with the recognition of train drivers and
staff accompanying the trains in another Member State. As in
relation to Article 10, the principle applies here too that
recognition should take place only when harmonised European
rules have been established for these staff members who are
important from a safety aspect.

The interoperability directives require rules to be laid down on
vocational qualification in the process of drawing up TSIs. In
Article 12(1) recognition should be made dependent on the
adoption and implementation of the relevant provisions in the
interests of consistency.

A reference to technical knowledge should be included in the
second paragraph of Article 12(2).

In Article 12(3)
the concept of a ‘reasonable and non-
discriminatory price’ should make allowance for costs incurred
by the railway undertaking in establishing and maintaining in-
house training facilities.

3.3.3.8. Article 10 Safety certificates

3.3.3.11. Article 19 Status of investigation

Article 10(3): Making safety certificates valid throughout the
Community raises doubts in relation to safety management as
long as no system of common safety management has been
established. The elements of the safety management system
listed in Annex III are very general and provide no guarantee
of compatibility with a different network.

Article 10(5): The possibility of the safety certificate being
revoked is rightly mentioned. The directive contains no list
of criteria for revocation, however. Non-compliance with
conditions could be interpreted in very different ways in
different Member States. And particularly where there is free
access to infrastructure in cross-border traffic, this would lead
to distortions of competition.

Article 19(2)(e) and (f) allows investigators, when conducting
inquiries into accidents and incidents, to question railway staff
involved and to have access to the results of interviews. Here
it must be ensured that staff members questioned have the
right to support from their trade union representatives, and
that these representatives are present in every case. Affected
staff members must have the right to decline to participate in
initial inquiries at the site of the accident.

A new Article 19(2)(h) should be added making provision for
the psychological counselling of staff
involved in serious
accidents or attacks.

3.3.3.12. Article 21 Accomplishment of investigations

Article 10(6): The Agency should also be informed of the issue
of safety certificates under Article 10(2)(b) and it should
maintain an appropriate register.

Article 21(3) requires investigations to be open and for the
results to be shared. The union representatives of the affected
staff should always be involved.

C 61/138

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.3.2003

Moreover, in the event of an accident or incident occurring in
a country other than the country of residence of the staff of
trade union representatives should be
the affected train,
informed and involved in the country in which the accident
occurred and at the undertaking employing the staff members
concerned.

The EESC feels that the social partners are part of the rail sector
and should have the same opportunities for participation as
other players. This should be made clear in Article 3, particu-
larly in view of the specific reference to the AEIF, which is
made up of UIC, UNIFE and IUPT and has only technical
competence.

3.3.3.13. Annex I Common safety indicators

Verbal and physical attacks on train drivers can pose a serious
safety risk and should be taken into consideration in drawing
up indicators, e.g. under the second point, dealing with
incidents.

3.3.3.14. Annex III Safety management systems

The holding of a social dialogue at the undertaking must be
part of the safety management systems, in relation to the risk
of both operational and workplace accidents.

3.4. Regulation establishing a European Railway Agency (1)

3.4.1.
The EESC welcomes the establishment of a European
Railway Agency as an instrument for technical support for
improving interoperability and as a contribution to ensuring a
high level of safety in the European rail transport sector. This
is a logical consequence of the increased importance of the
European level in guaranteeing the highest possible level of
transport safety, which was also recognised with the proposals
for a safety agency in the maritime shipping and civil aviation
sectors.

3.4.2. A r t i c l e 2 T y p e o f a c t s o f t h e A g e n c y

The powers of the Agency are restricted to recommendations
and opinions addressed to the Commission. The EESC feels
that the establishment of the Railway Agency should not give
rise to new bureaucracy which would merely place new
obstacles in the path of the sector, and that at this time the
Agency should not be assigned decision-making or regulatory
powers.

3.4.3. A r t i c l e

3

P a r t i c i p a t i o n

o f

p r o -

f e s s i o n a l s f r o m t h e s e c t o r

This article governs the participation of the sector in relation
to the membership of working parties on the basis of the work
programme of
the European Railway Agency. The EESC
welcomes this involvement. It is essential that the expertise of
sector professionals be exploited with a view to drawing up
well founded opinions and recommendations.

3.4.4. A r t i c l e 4 C o n s u l t a t i o n o f

t h e s o c i a l

p a r t n e r s

for example,

Provision is made for consultation of the social partners only
after the Agency has drawn up its recommendations, i.e. with
no provision for their participation,
in the
working parties. The activity of the Agency (particularly in
implementation of Articles 16 and 17 and of numerous
provisions of the safety and interoperability directives) will
have a significant impact on the social environment and
working conditions of railway employees. The social partners
should, therefore, be more closely involved and at a much
earlier stage.

It should be made clear that safety concerns not only
the technical and organisational side but also the working
environment.

The end of the first paragraph of the Article should be
amended to read ‘... the social partners in the Sectoral Dialogue
Committee established by Commission Decision 98/500/
EC (2)’.

3.4.5. A r t i c l e 7 S a f e t y c e r t i f i c a t e s

Harmonisation of safety certificates for certain kinds of
transport
is a goal worth striving for in the long term.
However, before the Agency can be instructed to draft a
harmonised format for safety certificates, the provisions of the
safety directive must first be adopted and implemented in
practice and in national law. This is also stated in the safety
directive.

An assessment should first be carried out involving all the
including the social partners. This
players in the sector
requirement should be incorporated into the text of the
regulation.

3.4.6. A r t i c l e 1 3 I n s p e c t i o n

It is not clear from the text what consequences will follow for
the Commission from the inspections and checks carried out
by the notified bodies or from the Agency’s opinions. Is the
Agency to perform the function of a supervisory authority?

( 1) COM(2002) 23 final.

(2) OJ L 255, 12.8.1998, p. 27.

14.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/139

3.4.7. A r t i c l e 1 7 V o c a t i o n a l q u a l i f i c a t i o n s

In drawing up the requirements for the qualifications of train
drivers, physical and psychological fitness are also highly
relevant, as is the frequency with which certificates are required
to be renewed. Account should also be taken of the additional
staff qualifications needed for cross-border services and activi-
ties for which the railway undertaking requires separate safety
certificates.

It should also be borne in mind that it is not only train drivers
who are relevant to the safety of rail transport. A number of
other functions are also directly concerned with rail transport
safety, such as train crew, movements inspectors, train compo-
sition planners, carriage and wagon examiners, maintenance
workers etc.

The EESC welcomes the exchange of train drivers and training
staff between railway undertakings in different Member States.

3.4.8. A r t i c l e 2 4 S t a f f

The EESC is glad that the Agency is to be staffed by railway
professionals. The ‘professionals from the sector’ (Article 24(3),
first indent of the proposal for a regulation) should include
persons with proven qualifications in the safety and health of
workers at work (1) and in vocational training in the railway
sector.

3.5. Negotiating mandate

for Community accession to the

COTIF (2)

The EESC supports the accession of the European
3.5.1.
Community to the Convention concerning International Car-
riage by Rail (COTIF) of 9 May 1980, as amended by the
Vilnius Protocol of 3 June 1999.

3.5.2.
The Committee has no comments on the provisions
contained in the annex to the Recommendation for a Council
Decision.

4.

Final comments

Ultimately, the aim is to create the main conditions for the
further development of continuous, cross-border transport of
goods on the European rail network. The revitalisation of
Europe’s railways is all the more urgent, given that it will not
be possible for the road haulage sector alone to absorb the
generally forecast increase of at least 40 % in goods transport
over the next ten years — and more than doubled volumes of
cross-border goods transport.

4.2.
The EESC also agrees with the Commission that the
current situation in the transport sector is unsatisfactory, both
for the majority of the population and for manufacturing
industry, and that society is no longer willing to accept the
social costs of road traffic, which are estimated at between 3,5
and 5 % of the GNP of the individual Member States.

But as the transport sector is an important component of a
country’s overall economy,
it needs to operate efficiently,
reliably, safely, and in an environmentally friendly and energy-
saving way, in order to ensure the balanced development of
the other sectors of the economy, balanced land use and the
harmonious development of society. The transport of goods
and passengers by rail could offer a real alternative, if we
succeed in revitalising Europe’s railways and in harnessing the
railways’ specific characteristics such as safety, reliability and a
high level of efficiency in high-volume, long-distance transport.

The key to this lies in the development of an efficient
and demand-orientated infrastructure by government, in the
improved competitiveness of rail transport vis-à-vis its com-
petitors, and in a drastic improvement in the quality of services
offered, e.g. with cross-border services from point A to point
B being offered by a single railway undertaking, as well as in
unrestricted cooperation between railway employees at sta-
tions and on board cross-border trains.

And the overriding concern in railway operation must continue
to be safety!

4.1.
The EESC supports the Commission in its efforts to
maintain and further strengthen the high level of safety of the
European railways, press ahead with interoperability, eliminate
the shortcomings in the trans-European rail network and
guarantee all railway undertakings authorised for the transport
of goods free and non-discriminatory access to the entire
European rail network.

( 1) Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 — OJ L 183,

29.6.1989, p. 1
( 2) COM(2002) 24 final.

that

In this spirit the EESC shares the concern of rail safety
4.3.
professionals and railway employees, as well as of many rail
users,
forced liberalisation could lead to large-scale
deregulation. The breaking-up of long-established national
railway undertakings into small units, the outsourcing of major
areas and routes and the withdrawal of government from
necessary investment in rail infrastructure and rolling stock
would run counter to the generally declared objective of
revitalising Europe’s railways,
impede the development of
uninterrupted cross-border rail services and destroy many
established synergies between infrastructure and operation of
services.

C 61/140

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.3.2003

In the light of

this and in accordance with the
4.4.
subsidiarity principle,
it should continue to be left to the
discretion of the Member States whether to go further than the
accounting separation required between infrastructure and
operation of services and the transfer of the main functions to
an independent body, as provided for in Directive 91/440/
EEC.

The EESC can well understand railway workers’ fears for their
jobs and for the future of their companies. It therefore calls on
the social partners of the rail sector to conduct an ongoing
social dialogue in the Sectoral Dialogue Committee, at and
with the help of the Commission, and to extend this to the
individual Member States.

In general

4.5.
terms, railway workers and their trade
unions must also be fully involved at an early stage in
procedures to ensure operational safety and in any necessary
restructuring of their railway undertakings, as these issues are
closely bound up with the everyday working practices of these
workers.

Railway users (and customers) should also be consulted on
this process at an early stage.

4.6.
In the event of an accident the prime concern must be
to identify the causes with a view to preventing future
tragedies, rather than to apportion blame.

The EESC will continue to advocate improved working
4.7.
conditions for professional road haulage drivers and mobile
inland waterway workers — not only in the interests of general
transport safety and the safety and health protection of
the workers concerned, but also in the interests of equal
competition with other modes of transport.

The EESC would also draw attention to the crucial importance
of uniform and strict application of social legislation, and it
calls for the Directive on the enforcement of driving and rest
periods in road haulage (Directive 88/599/EEC) to be amended
and strengthened accordingly.

In point 23 of the Presidency Conclusions the Barcelona
European Council of 15-16 March 2002 stressed ‘the import-
ance of safety in heavy goods traffic and the need to ensure
compliance with and the further development of the social
provisions’ and requested the Council ‘to conclude its work on
the relevant draft regulation before the end of 2002’.

As long as these social distortions of competition
4.8.
fair prices are charged for the use of
persist and until
infrastructure for goods transport, the choice of mode of
transport will continue to be made on the basis of the lowest
cost of freight, which will inevitably work to the disadvantage
of rail freight volumes and railway employment. In the period
1990-1999 alone half of all jobs at the EU’s national railway
undertakings were lost, the total falling from 1.3 million to
694 000.

Against

4.9.
this background the EESC welcomes the
announcement by the Commission that it will shortly be
submitting a framework directive on fair pricing of infrastruc-
ture use in the transport sector. In contrast to other modes of
transport, the inclusion of environmental costs is already
required in relation to the rail sector by Directive 2001/14/EC.
The EESC points out that there has still been no specific
follow-up to the 1995 Green Paper or the 1998 White Paper,
and that this is essential if there is to be a credible rail transport
policy.

4.10.
For this reason the EESC has long advocated fair
competition between the various modes of transport and
liberalisation (but not uncontrolled deregulation) of access to
the European rail network, without however denying the
advantages of suitable, voluntary and transparent cooperation
between old-established and new railway undertakings.

4.11.
Cooperation of this kind, as exemplified by the
pan-European Belifret ‘freightway’ (a continuous cross-border
corridor established in November 1997 for the transport of
goods by rail from Antwerp (Muizen) via Luxembourg, Metz
and Lyons to southern Spain and Italy, with a one-stop shop
with Luxembourg railways (CFL)), promotes the competi-
tiveness of the participating railway undertakings and serves
the interests of quality, reliability and safety in rail transport.
The services offered are closely geared to the demands of
industrial customers, freight forwarders and logistics com-
panies.

4.12.
The EESC considers improved quality and greater
customer and rail network user-orientation to be essential
preconditions for revitalising Europe’s railways. The keys to
success are the establishment of fair conditions of competition
and considerable strengthening of inter-modal transport in the
framework of a comprehensive technological and organis-
ational modernisation and innovation strategy. The Galileo
programme (1) could have a key role to play here in the future.
But
the necessary
resources for investment must be available and the commit-
ment and cooperation of railway workers, users and customers
created.

the political will must be there,

first,

(1) See also EESC Opinion, OJ C 311, 7.11.2001, p. 19.

14.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/141

For the EESC the revitalisation of

4.13.
the European
railways, with a high degree of safety and reliability, remains
an important precondition for the urgently needed restoration

of the balance between the various modes of transport, and
this is essential for a sustainable transport policy and the
completion of the internal market.

Brussels, 19 September 2002.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS

APPENDIX

to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee

(in accordance with Rule 54 of the Rules of Procedure)

The following amendment, which received at least a quarter of the votes cast, was defeated in the course of the
discussion of the text of the opinion:

Point 3.1.10

Amend to read as follows:

‘The EESC welcomes the Commission proposal to accelerate the opening-up of rail freight markets. The timescales
appear to be well balanced, between two requirements: (a) to bring about, as soon as possible, a revitalising
liberalisation before too many large parts of the railway system are excluded through insufficient competitive
capacity, and (b) to set up the new, integrated system for safety and interoperability which is needed. The Committee
wishes to stress in particular how important it is for the Member States to devote the maximum effort to
implementing the measures required for safety harmonisation.’

Reason

Self-evident.

Result of the vote

For: 42, against: 73, abstentions: 18.