Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on 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
Date: 2004-11-17
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: common transport policy, rail transport

C 71/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.3.2005

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the

— Communication from the Commission — Further integration of the European rail system: third

railway package

— 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

— Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the certification of

train crews operating locomotives and trains on the Community's rail network

— Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on international rail

passengers' rights and obligations

— Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on compensation in

cases of non-compliance with contractual quality requirements for rail freight services

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

(2005/C 71/07)

Having regard to the Communication from the Commission – Further integration of the European rail
system: third railway package – COM(2004) 140 final, the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parlia-
ment and of the Council amending Council Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community's
railways – COM(2004) 139 final – 2004/0047 (COD), the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parlia-
ment and of the Council on the certification of train crews operating locomotives and trains on the
Community's rail network – COM(2004) 142 final – 2004/0048 (COD), the Proposal for a Regulation of
the European Parliament and of the Council on international rail passengers' rights and obligations –
COM(2004) 143 final – 2004/0049 (COD), and the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament
and of the Council on compensation in cases of non-compliance with contractual quality requirements for
rail freight services – COM(2004) 144 final – 2004/0050 (COD);

Having regard to the decision of the Council of 28 April 2004 to consult it on this subject under the first
paragraph of Article 265 and Article 71 of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

Having regard to the decision of its President of 19 June 2004 to instruct the Commission for Territorial
Cohesion Policy to draw up an opinion on this subject;

Having regard to its earlier opinion on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the
Council on the interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system (COM(1999) 617 final -
1999/0252 COD) (CdR 94/2000 fin) (1);

Having regard to its earlier opinion on the Communication from the Commission: Towards an integrated
European railway area – (COM(2002) 18 final (the second railway package) (CdR 97/2002 fin) (2);

Having regard to its earlier opinion on the White Paper: European transport policy for 2010: time to
decide (COM(2001) 370 final) (CdR 54/2001 fin) (3);

Having regard to its earlier opinion on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of
the Council on the granting of Community financial assistance to improve the environmental performance
of the freight transport system – Marco Polo (COM(2002) 54 final - 2002/0038 COD) (CdR103/2002
fin) (4);

(1) OJ C 317 of 6.11.2000, p. 22
(2) OJ C 66 of 19.3.2003, p. 5
(3) OJ C 192 of 12.8.2002, p. 8
(4) OJ C 278 of 14.11.2002, p. 15

22.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/27

Having regard to its earlier opinion on Corridors and TEN-T: a lever for growth and vector of European
cohesion and on the Communication from the Commission on the development of a Euro-Mediterranean
transport network (COM(2003) 376 final) (CdR 291/2003 fin) (5);

Having regard to its draft opinion (CdR 161/2004 rev. 2) adopted on 24 September 2004 by its Commis-
sion for Territorial Cohesion Policy (rapporteur: Mr Bernard Soulage, Vice-President of the Rhône Region
(FR, PES));

Whereas:

1)

2)

3)

The development of rail passenger and freight transport is a vital condition for building an inte-
grated Europe, as well as an important source of economic growth,

Looking for an orderly way to open up rail transport markets would be an additional asset in the
achievement of this development objective, particularly at international level,

Any move towards integrating and opening up markets must bear the following three concerns in
mind: the quality of the service; the safety of the passengers and goods transported; and the rights
of users and the areas served;

unanimously adopted the following opinion at its 57th plenary session on 17 and 18 November
2004 (meeting of 17 November).

1. Views of the Committee of the Regions

Towards the creation of an internal market in rail services

regions is an initiative to be encouraged with a view to sustain-
able development; however, this must be part of a scheme
providing the regions with a high quality service based on the
timetable frequencies;

Whilst the Committee finds the proposals acceptable in prin-
ciple, there are many points which need to be clarified, both as
regards the arrangements for action by the States and regional/
local authorities concerned and the extent, scope and nature of
the rules proposed by the Commission. The Committee of the
Regions is anxious to ensure that the rail reform is imple-
mented in a way that will
thereby
increasing the competitiveness of rail in comparison with other
modes of transport and securing the economic viability of rail
transport operators.

improve rail services,

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

1.1 welcomes the efforts made to promote and implement
an integrated European railway area – a necessary precondition
for renewing the dynamism of a mode of transport that is
essential in terms of a sustainable transport policy in the Euro-
pean Union, as described in the White Paper;

1.2
broadly supports the Commission's efforts to further
the creation of a true internal market in rail services, in terms
of both passenger and freight transport, in accordance with the
decisions of
the European Parliament. The proposals put
forward as part of the third railway package are designed to
improve the quality of freight services and to gradually open
up the passenger transport market throughout the EU, starting
with international passenger services;

1.4 wishes to encourage the development of cross-frontier
services for the commuter market, which is far from negligible.
It must be made easier for the regions concerned to reach
agreements with one another to guarantee a high level of
quality and the viability of services;

1.5
also has major concerns about regional planning and
equal access to different regions. In this regard, it hopes that all
necessary steps will be taken to ensure that the entry of new
rail operators does not lead to the closure of non-profitable
routes which are currently kept running by using tariff equali-
sation.

Two dangers can be identified:

— the first relates to peripheral or landlocked regions, which
could find that they are excluded from these services if the
operator alone has a say in defining their characteristics. In
addition, some inter-regional routes that are not the subject
of public service contracts could be undermined by interna-
tional services using stops which generate the most traffic
and hence the most profits;

considers that in the field of international passenger
1.3
transport, the development of high-speed services connecting

(5) OJ C 109 of 30.4.2004, p. 10

— the second concerns the conditions for the application of
the safeguard clause for links (especially regional ones)
which are the subject of a public service contract;

C 71/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.3.2005

1.6
points out that the question of rail safety is crucial, as
is noted in the explanatory memorandum, and that the emer-
gence of low-cost carriers must not be allowed to undermine
safety requirements for users (training of drivers and licences,
dilapidated state of rolling stock and maintenance rules). It is
all the more important given that cabotage authorisation will
lead to a mix of traffic, particularly on regional routes where
public service contracts call for high levels of safety in most
lead de facto to the
cases. Moreover, allowing cabotage will
liberalisation of some national segments of the rail market, and
it is important to ensure that the opening up of the market to
competition in this way does not weaken the economic viabi-
lity of national routes that are not subject to public service
contracts;

1.7
confirms its support for the procedures for assessing
the reforms undertaken in the rail sector so as to ensure that
they lead to improved service provision (levels of service provi-
sion, service quality, safety, cost). Seen in this light,
the
Committee wonders whether the proposed timetable is appro-
priate, as it allows no room for the all-important assessment of
the previous reforms.

Certification of train drivers on the Community's rail network

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

1.8
intro-
endorses the Commission initiative aimed at
ducing a driver's certificate comprising two parts: 1) an EU
licence valid throughout EU territory,
issued by the national
authority or an authorised agency and belonging to the driver;
and 2) a harmonised complementary certificate which reflects
the particular requirements of the authorised service and would
have restricted validity and be issued by the railway company
that employs the driver;

1.11
supports the gradual phasing-in of the new provisions,
which initially will apply only to train drivers on international
routes but will eventually be extended, after evaluation, to all
train drivers.

Rights and obligations of international rail passengers

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

1.12 welcomes the Commission initiative to lay down rules
on the rights and obligations of international rail passengers, in
line with those established in the air transport sector. This
marks a step towards healthy competition between the various
modes of transport;

hopes that the proposed measures are extended to
1.13
States' internal cabotage services created within the framework
of the current legislation;

notes that the users' and local community representa-
1.14
tives have not been sufficiently taken into account in the proce-
dures likely to be implemented.

Compensation in cases of non-compliance with quality requirements
for rail freight services

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

notes that

the market has
1.15
declined as customers' expectations in terms of higher quality,
more punctual deliveries, etc. have increased;

share of

freight's

rail

considers that measures to improve the quality of
1.16
service delivered by railway undertakings are paramount and
that without such measures rail freight will continue to decline;

1.9
notes that these provisions were the subject of consulta-
tion between the partners (the Community of European Rail-
ways and the European Transport Workers' Federation) and
guarantee the free movement of workers within the Com-
munity;

1.17
notes the Commission's efforts to boost rail freight's
share of the market under continuing difficult circumstances.
Improving the quality of service provided by operators is
certainly one way to gain customer loyalty and attract new
customers;

1.10
affirms that the definition of strict safety rules is an
essential precondition in the light of the aim of achieving the
interoperability of networks. The proposed harmonisation is a
necessity given the wide variation in national laws on drivers'
certification. The testing of physical and psychological fitness,
regular check-ups, the monitoring of levels of competence and
basic knowledge of a common language are essential guaran-
tees for a high level of rail safety;

1.18
questions whether the Commission should regulate
this sector when operators have contractual relations with their
customers in which quality requirements are part of the nego-
tiated terms. The danger here is that regulation could be
counter-productive, particularly if the quality requirements lead
to higher service costs, while road transport remains free to fix
mutually agreed requirements. This is an even more sensitive
issue for rail operators in the new Member States, especially if
the Commission does not regulate quality requirements on the
same basis for all modes of transport.

22.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/29

2. Recommendations of the Committee of the Regions

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

asks that the proposed timetable be modified to leave
2.1
room for the necessary evaluation of the earlier reforms and in
particular so that this evaluation can take into account the
changes required by these reforms in the new Member States
and outlying regions;

calls for a more precise definition of

least one major urban centre in each of

2.2
international
service by including the requirement that termini be located in
at
the countries
covered by the international service. The definition of ‘interna-
tional passenger service’ proposed in Article 1 of the draft
Directive (COM(2004) 139 final) is limited to a single criterion,
namely that ‘the train crosses at least one border’. The simpli-
city of this definition could lead to deviant behaviour (free
riders), since serving the first station across the border would be
enough to qualify for the status of international service even
though practically all turnover would be generated in just one
country. Such a practice would lead de facto to the opening of
the national market of the country concerned;

2.3
asks for the role of the States and local and regional
authorities to be specified when defining the characteristics of
the proposed international service (number of services, number
of stops, frequency, periodicity, fares on national routes);

suggests that the wording of the draft directive should
2.4
be made more specific, stipulating that cabotage services may
be restricted by decision of the local or regional authority, as
the organising authority for a route subject to a public service
contract, or the regulatory body referred to in Article 30 of
Directive 2001/14/EC;

depend on the nature of the services to be provided. It is, for
example, difficult, a priori, to imagine having the same rules
for a cross-border service connecting two adjacent regions, a
service on a high-speed route between, say, London and
Marseille, a night service between Hamburg and Zurich and a
seasonal service between Paris and Venice;

2.6
suggests that reference should be made to the impact
that opening up the international rail services market would
have on international coach routes, especially in terms of the
freedom to set fares on these routes (do these companies also
have the right to national cabotage?);

it

insists that

2.7
is necessary to clarify the conditions
under which the new international rail services will or will not
be able to set tariffs freely - particularly for cabotage customers
- so as to prevent distortion of competition with national
operators, when the latter do not have this freedom;

the length of operation of

the new
2.8
suggests that
services should be fixed,
in accordance with the return on
investment. So as to avoid volatility in the provision of services
it is important that guarantees be given to the
in this area,
parties involved;

2.9
requests that the harmonised complementary certificate
for train crews require a command of the language of each
country through which a route passes;

2.10
insists that the conditions for passenger compensation
applicable to rail transport, particularly with regard to train
delays, be identical to those applied in the air transport sector
(duration and level of compensation);

2.5
recommends that the conditions governing the opera-
tion of international services should be defined to reflect the
nature of the proposed services. The conditions regarding the
viability of such services, the fares charged and levels of service

2.11
notes that a growing number of local and regional
authorities are concerned with these issues and so it is vital
that their representatives are involved in all the State or Com-
munity bodies responsible for implementing these measures.

Brussels, 17 November 2004

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Peter STRAUB