Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 251 (2) of the EC Treaty concerning the common position of the Council on the adoption of a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2236/95 laying down general rules for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of trans-European networks
Date: 2004-02-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU financing, balance of payments assistance, energy grid, trans-European network, transport network

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 25.2.2004 
COM(2004) 141 final 

2001/0226 (COD) 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 251 (2) of the EC Treaty 

concerning the 

common position of the Council on the adoption of a Regulation of the European 
Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2236/95 laying 
down general rules for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of trans-
European networks 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
2001/0226 (COD) 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 251 (2) of the EC Treaty 

concerning the 

common position of the Council on the adoption of a Regulation of the European 
Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2236/95 laying 
down general rules for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of trans-
European networks 

1- 

BACKGROUND 

Date of transmission of the proposal to the European Parliament and 
the Council: 
(document COM(2001) 545 final – 2001/0226 (COD)) 

03.12.2001 

Date of transmission of the revised (I) proposal: 
(document COM(2002) 134 final – 2001/0226 (COD)) 

12.03.2002 

Date  of  the  opinion  of  the  European  Economic  and  Social 
Committee: 

20.03.2002 

Committee of the Regions decided not to give an opinion on the 
proposal. 

25.03.2002 

Date of the opinion of the European Parliament, first reading: 

02.07.2002 

Date of transmission of the amended proposal:  
(document COM(2003)38 final – 2001/0226 (COD)): 

Date of transmission of the revised (II) proposal: 
(document COM(2003)561 final – 2001/0226 (COD)): 

Date of adoption of the political agreement:  
(by unanimity) 

Date of adoption of the common position: 

24.01.2003 

02.10.2003 

25.11.2003 

24.02.2004 

2- 

OBJECTIVE OF THE COMMISSION PROPOSAL 

The objective of the proposal is to increase the maximum rate of support for Trans-European 
Energy priority projects (TEN-E) and Transport priority projects (TEN-T) which fall into the 
category  of  cross-border  and/or  cross  natural  barriers  projects.  Maximum  rate  of  support  is 
proposed  to  be  increased  from  10%  to  20%,  in  order  to  have  a  leverage  effect  on  these 
projects,  by  speeding  up  their  implementation  and  facilitating  the  setting  up  of  PPP  (Public 
Private  Partnerships).  The  proposal  relies  on  the  conclusions  and  recommendations  in  the 

2 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
report by the High-Level Group chaired by Mr Karel Van Miert which worked on the TEN-T 
guidelines,  leading  to  the  parallel  proposal  to  amend  Decision  No 1692/96/EC1  on  the 
guidelines  for  the  trans-European  transport  network.  The  report  by  the  High-Level  Group 
warned  the  Commission  of  the  risk  that  the  cross-border  projects  will  not  be  carried  out  in 
time unless Community aid provides a sufficient incentive to mobilise and coordinate public 
and private capital. Cross-border connections of this kind are essential for exchanges between 
Member States and for the connectivity along the major trans-European routes. The "border 
effect" often results in lighter local traffic, which tends to make the cross-border projects less 
profitable than schemes located at the heart of the national networks. As a result, the gap to be 
filled  by  public  financing  is  greater.  Paradoxically,  this  tendency  to  neglect  cross-border 
projects  has  an  adverse  effect  on  the  profitability  of  the  investments  made  by  the  Member 
States in the sections in their own country, denying them the benefit of economies of scale. 

Accordingly, the proposal targets, in particular, sections priority projects which show a high 
trans-European added value but, at the same time, that present low financial profitability. 

3- 

COMMENTS ON THE COMMON POSITION 

3.1 

General 

In order to better understand the contents of the common position, it is necessary to recall the 
rather complex “life cycle” of the proposal, which includes in fact four consecutive proposals, 
which aim remains the same but which content is – to some extend - different. 

•  First Commission’s proposal (COM(2001) 545) – adopted in October 2001 

•  First  revised  Commission’s  proposal  (COM(2002)  134)  –  adopted  in  March  2002.  The 

revision’s aim was to include energy networks in the scope of the proposal. 

•  Modified Commission’s proposal after the first EP reading (COM(2003) 38) – adopted in 

January 2003 

•  Second  revised  Commission’s  proposal  presented  to  unblock  the  situation  in  the  Council 
(COM(2003)  561).  In  this  context,  although  the  scope  of  the  proposal  remains  the  same, 
the  Commission  had  to  abandon  some  of  the  amendments  accepted  after  the  first  EP 
reading in order to facilitate a political agreement in the Council. 

Therefore,  the  Council  Common  Position  is  based  –  partly  –  on  the  contents  of  the  second 
Commission’s revised proposal (COM(2003) 561) and partly on the previous Commission’s 
proposals, whereas the first reading of the EP was based on the first Commission’s proposal 
(COM(2001) 545).  It  is  –  to  some  extend  –  rather  difficult  to  identify  in  the  text  of  the 
Common  Position  of  the  Council,  the  amendments  accepted  by  Commission  after  the  first 
reading  of  the  EP,  as  some  of  them  have  not  been  kept  in  the  last  Commission  proposal 
(COM(2003) 561), or their wording has significantly changed. 

Furthermore,  it  must  be  recalled  that  the  Council  has  not  given  its  opinion  on  the  EP 
amendments. 

1 

COM(2003) 564 

3 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
3.2 

The fate of the amendments 

3.2.1  Amendments accepted in the amended proposal and in the common position 

Amendments 1, 4, 8, 9, 11, 13 were accepted in part or in principle and they were 
subject to reformulation or additions. 

Amendments 1, 7, 10 were rejected. 

The  following  amendments  –  relating  to  recitals  -  have  been  dropped  from  the  last 
Commission proposal (COM (2003) 561):   
- the second part of amendment 4 relating to “sustainable mobility” was not included 
in Commission proposal (COM(2003) 561). 

-  Amendment  5  that  made  reference  on  delays  that  face  projects  in  the  Alps  and 
Pyrénées,  and  amendment  6  that  made  a  specific  reference  on  GALILEO  were  not 
included Commission proposal (COM(2003) 561). 

3.2.1.1 Amendment 1 (Recital 6) 
A  reference  on  the  priority  to  be  given  in  financing  TEN-Energy  is  accepted  in 
principle, but redrafted. 

3.2.1.2 Amendment 4 (Recital 5) 
A  reference  on  Public-Private-Partnerships  as  a  financing  tool  is  made  with  a 
different formulation. 

3.2.1.3 Amendments 8 and 13 (art 5§ 3.c)  

The scope of the common position remains similar – in essence - to the one adopted 
by  the  EP  and  proposed  by  the  Commission  in  its  modified  proposal.  Projects 
concerned by an increased rate of support are: 
-priority projects of the Energy network; 
-cross-border and cross natural section of priority projects; 
- those which aim is to promote safety and environmentally friendly modes. 
In  addition,  the  reference  to  Decision  1692/96,  requested  by  the  EP  is  kept  in  the 
common position. Nevertheless, the scope has been widened with respect to the text 
adopted by the EP as all modes (and not only rail) are now concerned, but it remains 
broadly in line with the last Commission proposal (COM(2003) 561). 

The rate of co-financing for cross-border or cross natural priority projects as well as 
for priority projects in the energy sector is 20%, in accordance with the one proposed 
by the Commission in its modified proposal after the EP first reading. 

3.2.1.4 Amendment 9 (article 13 § 4 new) 

The  introduction  of  stricter  rules  in  financing  projects  to  comply  with  sound  and 
efficient  management,  introduced  by  the  EP  (amendment  9)  is  kept  with  a  slightly 
different formulation, based on the one proposed by the Commission in its proposal 
Commission proposal (COM (2003) 561). 

4 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.2.1.5. Amendment 10 (Art 17§3) committee 

The Common Position does not follow the Commission’s proposal – shared by the 
EP  - that  plans  to set up an advisory procedure for the committee. It maintains the 
regulatory  procedure  as  it  is  presently  used,  but  agrees  on  the  presence  of  an  EIB 
representative (as observer) in the Committee ( art 17§2) 

3.2.1.6 Amendment 11 (Art18§2) 

Although the Common Position does not follow amendment 11 on the increase of the 
financial framework for the period 2001-2006, it keeps the second alinea relating to a 
stricter assessment of the use of funds ( article 18§2 new ) 

3.2.2  Amendments appearing in the amended proposal but not in the common position 

3.2.2.1  The  Common  Position  does  not  follow  the  request  made  by  amendment  4 
which  concerned  cross-border  projects  with  acceding  countries  included  (which 
could benefit from the maximum rate of support) as it  considers this clause as null 
and void from the 1st May 2004 onwards, due to the entering of most of the acceding 
countries in the Union. 

3.2.2.2 The Common Position does not follow  amendment 7 on the increase of the 
financial framework for the implementation of Regulation No 2236/95 

3.3 

New provisions introduced by the Council 

the  Commission  proposal  (COM(2003) 561), 

3.3.1.  Following 
the  Council 
introduced  the  possibility  of  financing  TENs  based  on  a  multiannual  legal 
commitment (whereas the budgetary one remains annual) giving projects promoters a 
strong guarantee that they will receive funding from the Community throughout the 
implementation phase. 

4- 

CONCLUSION 

The  Commission  supports  the  Council  Common  Position  –  despites  some  changes  with 
respect to its last proposal - as it largely follows the lines of the amended proposal. The main 
change  relate  to  the  maximum  rate  of  support.  The  Council  Common  Position  keeps  this 
maximum  rate  of  cofinancing  at  20%  whereas  the  Commission  proposed  30%  in  its 
(COM(2003) 561). The 20% rate was nevertheless also the rate agreed by the EP in the first 
reading. 

5 

 
 
  
 
5- 

A. 

DECLARATIONS 

Council and Commission declaration 

The Council and the Commission confirm that over the period 2000-2006 this regulation has 
no impact on the total allocated to the TEN’s. 

B. 

1. 

2. 

Council declarations 

The Council underlines that this regulation does not prejudge the next negotiation on 
the financial perspectives. 

The  Council  notes  the  Commission’s  cost  estimate  of  the  “cross-border  sections” 
(excluding  motorways  of  the  sea)  referred  to  in  Article  12  is  EUR  15  bn  for  the 
period 2007-13. Consequently, if all these cross-border sections would benefit from 
the  maximum  rate  of  20  %3,  the  estimated  budgetary  cost  would  amount  to 
EUR 430 M€4 annually. 

3. 

The Council notes the following Commission declaration: 

“The  presentation  by  the  Commission  to  the  TEN-T  Finance  Committee  of  a 
proposal for the supplementary financial assistance shall be accompanied by: 

a  financial  analysis  by  the  promoter  of  the  project,  which  demonstrates  that 
a) 
supplementary financial assistance is essential for the implementation of the project; 

b) 
a  reassessment  of  the  project  by  the  Commission,  together  with  the  EIB,  in 
agreement  with the  Regulation,  which shall inter alia verify  the project’s economic 
viability,  financial  profitability  and  direct  or  indirect  socio-economic  effects,  given 
the proposed supplementary financial assistance, and the financial analysis provided 
by the promoter.” 

2 
3 
4 

Precise reference foreseen 
precise figure foreseen on the basis of the rate to be agreed 
precise figure foreseen on the basis of the rate to be agreed 

6