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 adopted by the Council with a view to the adoption of a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the certification of train drivers operating locomotives and trains on the Community’s rail network
Date: 2006-09-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Community certification, drivers, professional qualifications, rail transport, trans-European network, transport safety

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 18.9.2006 
COM(2006) 515 final 

2004/0048 (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 adopted by the Council with a view to the adoption of a directive of the 
European Parliament and of the Council on the certification of train drivers operating 
locomotives and trains on the Community’s rail network 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
2004/0048 (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 adopted by the Council with a view to the adoption of a directive of the 
European Parliament and of the Council on the certification of train drivers operating 
locomotives and trains on the Community’s rail network 

1. 

BACKGROUND 

Date of transmission of the proposal to the EP and the 
Council(COM(2004)0142 – C6-0002/2004 – 2004/0048(COD) 

4 March 2004 

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

9 February 2005 

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

28 September 2005 

Date of adoption of the common position: 

14 September 2006 

2. 

OBJECTIVE OF THE COMMISSION PROPOSAL 

On  3  March  2004,  the  Commission  proposed  a  series  of  measures  (the  “third  railway 
package”),  which  the  Council  began  examining  in  April  2004  and  Parliament  began 
examining  in  October  2004.  The  package  comprises  four  legislative  proposals,  including  a 
proposal for a directive on the certification of train crews operating locomotives and trains on 
the  Community's  rail  network.  Drawn  up  in  consultation  with  the  industry  and  the  social 
partners, this text provides for a mechanism to define more clearly powers and responsibilities 
as  regards  the  training  of  train  drivers  and  crews  who  perform  safety-related  tasks,  and  the 
assessment  and  recognition  of  their  qualifications.  Train  drivers  will  have  to  hold  a  licence 
certifying their general skills; this licence will be their property and will be valid throughout 
the Community. The licence will have to be supplemented by a certificate issued by a railway 
undertaking  confirming  that  specific  training  has  been  followed  for  the  line  concerned,  the 
rolling  stock  used  and  the  operational  and  safety  procedures  which  are  specific  to  that 
undertaking. 

3. 

COMMENTS ON THE COMMON POSITION 

The Council unanimously adopted general amendments to the Commission’s proposal which 
are acceptable since they make it possible to achieve the objectives set. 

Of the 45 amendments adopted by the European Parliament on first reading, the Commission 
was able to accept 25 as such or with drafting amendments (1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
14, 18, 19, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, 42, 44 and 46). It was able accept 11 in principle (5, 
17, 21, 22, 23, 35, 37, 40, 41, 43 and 47) and one in part (2). The Commission considered that 
8 amendments were not acceptable (15, 24, 25, 26, 32, 38, 39 and 45). 

The  Council  found  that  a  significant  number  of  objectives  pursued  by  the  EP  were  already 
taken into account in its common position, and took over certain amendments in their entirety 
(27, 36 and 44). 

4. 

DETAILED COMMISSION COMMENTS 

4.1. 

Amendments  accepted  by  the  Commission,  and  incorporated  in  part  in  the 
common position 

The references below are to the recitals and articles of the common position. 

•  Amendment  1:  the  proposed  clarifications  can  be  found  in  other  parts  of  the 

preamble. 

•  Amendment  6:  this  amendment  is  taken  over  in  a  different  wording  in  the  new 

recital (20) of the common position. 

•  Amendment 8: this amendment is taken over in part in the new definition of “train 

driver” as set out in Article 3(b) of the common position. 

•  Amendment 10: this amendment proposes a definition of “training centre” which 

has been partially taken over in the common position (Article 3(k)). 

•  Amendment  12:  the  Commission  can  agree  to  this  simplification  of  categories, 
whereby  driving  is  authorised  on  the  basis  of  the  harmonised  complementary 
certificate, since the common position provides, in Article 4 (3) for the definition 
of codes which will make it possible to identify more precisely the type of service 
authorised. 

•  Amendment 13: the clarification requested by the EP is fully incorporated in the 

new wording of Article 11(3). 

•  Amendments 17, 46 and 47 these amendments concern Article 16 which specifies 
the  periodic  checks  which  must  be  undergone  so  that  drivers  can  keep  their 
licences  and  certificates.  Article  16  of  the  Council’s  common  position  has  been 
recast in order to achieve a fair balance between the provisions to be included in 
the  body  of  the  text  and  those  to  be  included  in  the  annexes.  Minimum 
frequencies  are  laid  down  in  the  annexes  for  all  types  of  checks;  they  may  be 
altered, where necessary, by means of the Committee procedure, on the basis of 
experience.  The  principle  of  continuous  training  has  been  included  in  Article 
23(8) of the common position. 

•  Amendment 19: this amendment concerns Article 17 and is incorporated virtually 

in its entirety in the common position. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
•  Amendments 21 and 22: the proposals concerning the reformulation of Article 18 
are acceptable as far as the principles are concerned. They are reflected to some 
extent  in  the  common  position,  in  which  a  better  balance  between  monitoring 
carried out by the employer (Article 18) and controls by the competent authority 
(Article 28) has been established. 

•  Amendment  23:  the  proposals  concerning  the  reformulation  of  Article  19  are 
acceptable as far as the principles are concerned. However, an exhaustive list of 
the  tasks  of  the  competent  authority  has  proved  necessary,  and  the  text  of  the 
common position meets this objective. 

•  Amendment  28:  this  amendment  concerns  the  delegation  of  the  tasks  of  the 
competent authority. This aspect has been clarified in the new wording of Article 
19. 

•  Amendment 29: this amendment concerns the publication of the list of accredited 
persons.  This  aspect  has  been  clarified  in  the  new  wording  of  Article  20  in  the 
Council’s common position. 

•  Amendments  30  and  33:  these  amendments  concern  the  recognition  of  trainers 
and examiners by the competent authority. They are incorporated almost entirely 
in  Articles  20,  23  (training)  and  24  (examinations),  as  amended  in  the  common 
position. 

•  Amendment 41: the aim of this amendment, which is to provide for a target date 
for the complete migration of existing licences is achieved in the new paragraph 
2(c) of Article 36 as proposed in the common position. 

•  Amendment 42: this amendment is taken over almost entirely in Article 33 of the 
common  position.  The  text  of  the  amendment  contains  an  explanation  which 
should be in the preamble rather than the operative part. 

4.2. 

Amendments accepted by the Commission, but not incorporated in the common 
position 

•  Amendment  2:  the  Commission  could  only  support  this  amendment  in  part:  the 
text concerning the agreement on “working conditions of mobile staff engaged in 
cross-border  services”  is  unacceptable  since  the  Commission  proposal  does  not 
concern working time and rest periods. 

•  Amendments 3 and 4: these amendments specify the objectives to be achieved and 

were acceptable to the Commission. 

•  Amendments  5  and  37:  with  regard  to  the  role  of  the  social  partners,  the 
Commission had indicated that it was necessary to differentiate between the TSIs 
(technical  specifications  for  interoperability),  which  are  technical  requirements 
formulated by the European Railway Agency in accordance with the directives in 
force concerning interoperability and the Regulation establishing the Agency, and 
annexes  to  a  directive  which  are  subject  to  the  co-decision  procedure  or,  by 
delegation of responsibilities, to the Committee procedure. However, it was able 
that  social  partners  should  be  properly  consulted  concerning 
to  accept 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
requirements with an impact on working conditions and on the health and safety 
of workers. 

•  Amendments  7,  9,  11,  34  and  35:  while  supporting  the  Commission’s approach, 
these amendments propose a clearer definition of train crews and the procedures 
to  be  applied  to  them.  They  are  therefore  acceptable,  as  to  the  principle,  but  it 
should be noted that adding a new annex by Committee procedure, as proposed by 
the EP, raises legal problems. It should be noted that not only did the Council not 
take  over  these  amendments,  it  also  restricted  the  application  of  the  directive  to 
drivers. 

•  Amendment  14:  this  is  the  logical  consequence  of  simplifying  the  categories. 
However,  this  provision,  which  allows  a  Member  State  to  require  two  years’ 
professional experience in category A before moving on to category B, has been 
deleted  since  the  licence  is  issued  by  the  railway  undertaking  under  its  own 
responsibility and to obtain the licence the applicant driver must undergo training 
the aims of which are specified in an annex to the directive and pass a number of 
examinations conducted by recognised or accredited examiners. All the conditions 
are  therefore  met  to  ensure  that  licences  are  issued  on  the  basis  of  a  full 
knowledge  of  the  facts,  while  allowing  undertakings  sufficient  flexibility  to 
organise the training and certification of their drivers as efficiently as possible. 

•  Amendment 18: the Commission can accept this amendment, which provides that, 
when  a  driver  ceases  to  be  employed  by  a  railway  undertaking  or  infrastructure 
manager, the competent authority must be informed without delay. 

•  Amendment  31: this is compatible with Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of 
individuals  with  regard  to  the  processing  of  personal  data  and  on  the  free 
movement of such data. 

•  Amendment 40, concerning Article 34 (1) to (4): In part of this amendment, the 
EP proposes to refer to trains which have right of access deriving from Directive 
91/440.  While  simplifying  the  timetable  for applying  the directive, this proposal 
would have the drawback of making its field of application less clear. Moreover, 
the  proposed  dates  are  not  realistic  given  the  timetable  for  the  adoption  of  the 
third  railway  package.  The  new  text  of  Article  34  makes  it  possible  to  take 
account of the various requirements: the need to set up registers before starting to 
certify drivers, the need to take account of existing drivers, and the need to take 
account of drivers undergoing training when the directive enters into force, etc. 

•  Amendment 43: the proposed amendment concerning the verification of physical 
fitness,  as  set  out  in  Annex  III  3.2,  subparagraph  1,  can  be  accepted  as  to  the 
principle. 

4.3. 

Amendments rejected by the Commission and not incorporated in the common 
position 

•  Amendment 15: the term “period checks” is preferred in order to clearly indicate 
that,  to  keep  the  licence  and  complementary  certificate,  drivers  must  regularly 
undergo certain tests on safety grounds. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
•  Amendments  24  and  25:  The  terms  “occupational  physician”  and  “transport 
psychologist”  are  interpreted  differently  in  different  Member  States.  The 
Commission is therefore unable to take up these amendments. 

•  Amendment 26: the purpose of this amendment is unclear. Verification of general 
professional skills can be carried out by an institute or by an examiner provided 
that  they  are  accredited  by  the  competent  authority.  The  text  of  the  common 
position is more precisely worded than the original proposal (see Articles 20 and 
23) and may be to the EP’s satisfaction on this point. 

•  Amendment 32: Despite the fact that in principle the proposal appears to protect 
the  investment  made  by  an  employer  for  training  a  driver,  there  are  several 
problems  here.  First  of  all,  there  are  no  equivalent  clauses  in  other  modes  of 
transport,  in  particular  in  the  aviation  sector  in  which  training  is  also  very 
expensive.  A  clause  of  this  kind  concerns  labour  law  and  hence  does  not  seem 
particularly  relevant  in  this  directive.  Lastly,  the  reasons  why  a  driver  leaves  an 
employer may be many and varied. If a driver leaves as a result of the employer’s 
fault, why should another undertaking be required to pay for the training? 

•  Amendment  39:  once  the  legislation  has  been  adopted,  it  will  be  necessary  to 
allow the Member States sufficient time to transpose the directive and amend their 
own national legislation accordingly. A period of less than two years is considered 
to be unrealistic in this connection. 

•  Amendment 45: where safety is concerned, it should be stressed that, to obtain a 
harmonised  complementary  certificate  in  another  Member  State,  a  driver  will 
have  to  undergo  suitable  training  to  acquire  knowledge  of  the  infrastructure, 
operating  rules  and  language,  and  then  be  tested  by  an  examiner  accredited  or 
recognised  by  the  safety  authority  of  the  country  in  which  the  driver  wishes  to 
drive.  This  amendment  would  unnecessarily  increase  the  economic  impact  of 
training borne by railway undertakings. 

4.4. 

Amendments  rejected  by  the  Commission  but  incorporated  in  the  common 
position 

•  Amendment  38:  this  amendment  concerns  the  report  to  be  drawn  up  by  the 
Agency on the application of the directive. The text of the common position takes 
account of this amendment and is more complete. 

•  Amendment 40, concerning Article 35 (5): part of this amendment introduces the 
possibility  of  a  temporary  derogation  for  “domestic”  drivers.  The  Commission 
cannot accept such derogations on the scale of entire countries for several reasons. 
Firstly,  in  social  terms,  this  would  be  tantamount  to  creating  two  “classes”  of 
drivers,  whereas  in  practice  these  categories  are  not  watertight.  This  would 
generate  career  and  wage  differences  that  it  would  be  difficult  to  justify. 
Secondly, in safety  terms, there  would be two categories  of drivers on  the  same 
route:  those  trained  and  certified  in  accordance  with  this  directive,  and  those 
trained and certified in accordance with and ad hoc national system. They might 
not have the same reactions in the same situations. Thirdly, in economic terms, the 
Member  States  would  have  to  maintain  two  different  sets  of  legislation  and  two 
accreditation/ 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
recognition  systems  for  trainers/examiners,  the  undertakings  would  have  to 
maintain two different training systems, etc. This duplication would be inefficient 
and generate costs. 

5. 

CONCLUSION 

The  Commission  proposal  envisaged  covering  all  train  crew  members  with  safety-critical 
tasks and did not provide for the possibility of derogation for a Member State. However, the 
Commission recognises that the Council common position does not alter the main objective or 
the spirit of its proposal. 

EN 

7 

   EN