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 on international rail passengers’ rights and obligations
Date: 2006-09-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: common transport policy, consumer protection, international transport, provision of services, rail transport, traveller

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 18.09.2006 
COM(2006) 517 final 

2004/0049 (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 on international rail passengers’ rights and obligations 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
2004/0049 (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 on international rail passengers’ rights and obligations 

1- 

BACKGROUND 

Date  of  transmission  of  the  proposal  to  the  EP  and  the  Council 
(document COM(2004)143 final - 2004/0049(COD)): 

3 March 2004 

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

9 February 2005 

Date  of 
A6 – 0123/2005 

the  opinion  of 

the  European  Parliament,  first  reading:  

28 September 2005 

Date of adoption of the common position: 

24 July 2006 

2- 

OBJECTIVE OF THE COMMISSION PROPOSAL 

The proposal for international rail passenger rights is one of the four measures proposed in the 
context  of  the  third  railway  package  (the  other  measures  are  intended  to  establish  a 
certification system for train drivers, to improve the quality of rail freight services and to open 
up the market of the international transport of railway passenger s of 1.1.2010). 

This proposal aims at establishing rights and obligations for passengers in order to improve 
the  effectiveness  and  attractiveness  of  international  rail  passenger  transport.  It  lays  down 
provisions on the minimum requirements for information to be provided to passengers before, 
during  and  after  their  journey;  contract  conditions;  the  liability  of  railway  undertakings  in 
cases of accidents, liability and other consequences of delays or cancellations of services; the 
conditions under which persons with reduced mobility shall be assisted, quality standards as 
well as risk management and, finally, the conditions under which railway undertakings shall 
co-operate to achieve the aims of the Regulation. 

To  a  large  extent  rail  passenger  rights  build  on  existing  systems  of  international  law  in  the 
subject  matter  and  in  particular,  on  the  Convention  on  International  Carriage  by  Rail 
(COTIF/CIV) and on Community rules adopted for air passengers. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
3- 

COMMENTS ON THE COMMON POSITION 

The Council unanimously made some general changes relative to the Commission's proposal 
that are acceptable because they would ensure its aims were met. 

First,  the  Council  revises  the  structure  of  the  regulation  and  clearly  distinguishes  eight 
chapters  (I  -  General  provisions,  II  -  Transport  contract,  information  and  ticketing,  III  - 
Liability  of  railway  undertakings  for  passengers  and  their  luggage,  IV  -  Delays,  missed 
connections and cancellation, V – Persons with reduced mobility, VI – Security, complaints 
and  quality  of  service,  VII  –  Enforcement  and  VIII  –  Final  provisions).  The  number  of 
annexes is reduced from four to three, whereby Annex I and II of the Commission proposal 
are  slightly  adapted  and  merged  in  II,  Annex  II  is  incorporated  into  the  text  (delay 
compensation) and the provisions  of COTIF/CIV relevant for chapters II, III and V become 
Annex I.  

For a large part the Council confirmed the scope proposed by the Commission (“international 
journeys”, which are one or several rail services, of which at least one has to be international, 
undertaken under one transport contract), whereas the application of Chapter IV on delays is 
limited  to  international  services  and  Chapter  V  on  persons  with  reduced  mobility  has  an 
extended scope covering also domestic journeys on international services. The Council thus 
adjusted the scope of the different chapters according to their respective needs. 

Contrary  to  the  Commission’s  proposal,  the  Council,  as  well  as  the  European  Parliament, 
limit the duty of railway undertakings to provide tickets, through-tickets and respective travel 
information throughout the EU rail network, to the cases where such information or tickets are 
available to the rail operator receiving the request.  

The Council and the European Parliament request however the establishment of a computer 
reservation  and  information  system  for  rail  journeys  throughout  the  EU,  which  will  help 
rendering  access  to  information,  tickets  and  reservations  on  international  services  more 
consumer friendly. The relevant legislative measure will be subject to a comitology procedure 
launched on a proposal to be elaborated with the assistance of the European railway agency. 

In  most  aspects  the  Council,  in  line  with  a  similar  request  from  the  European  Parliament, 
replace  the  Commission’s  proposal  in  relation  to  liability  of  railway  undertakings  for 
passengers  or  luggage  in  case  of  accidents  and  damage  due  to  delay,  missed  connection  or 
cancellation  by  the  COTIF/CIV  framework.  Although  such  an  approach  will  considerably 
limit  passenger  rights  for  damage  compensation,  the  Commission  can  accept  this 
modification. Once experience has been gained with the application of the present regulation 
the  Commission  may  reconsider  the  issue.  Unlike  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council 
weakens the request for a minimum level of obligatory insurance cover for liability in case of 
accidents. 

The Council proposes a simplification, based on a similar request by the European Parliament, 
of  the  framework  originally  proposed  by  the  Commission  for  ad-hoc  compensation  and 
assistance  in  case  of  delay,  missed-connection  or  cancellation,  in  order  to  allow  its 
straightforward application to the advantage of passengers. The Commission agrees fully with 
this simplification. 

In general terms, the Council is very supportive of rights of persons with reduced mobility. 
It attempts to extent their scope and renders their application more practical and foreseeable, 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
while however limiting at the same time some of the duties on station managers and railway 
undertakings. In general the Commission agrees to the modification. It does however consider 
unfortunate one proposed modification concerning in Article 19(1) last sentence granting the 
station  manager  the  possibility  to  limit  the  assistance  already  confirmed  in  case  of  purely 
commercial  impediments  .  The  European  Parliament  has  tabled  amendments  going  beyond 
the  scope  of  this  proposal,  for  ex.  obligations  intended  to  increase  accessibility  of  railway 
rolling stock and stations, which will however be reflected in a future Technical Specification 
of Interoperability on Passengers with Reduced Mobility, an issue which the Commission will 
examine further. 

Contrary to the European Parliament, the Council has confirmed obligations on the definition 
and monitoring of quality standards. 

4- 

COMMISSION DETAILED COMMENTS 

Out of the 122 amendments adopted by the Parliament in first reading, 63 were fully taken on 
board by the Council in its Common Position and 9 partially, of which the Commission had 
rejected 12 in full and 3 in part. The Common Position rejects 25 amendments fully and 4 in 
part,  which  the  Commission  had  accepted.  The  Common  Position  did  not  take  on  board  26 
amendments fully and 3 in part, which the Commission had also rejected.  

The  main  amendment  of  the  European  Parliament  concerned  the  extension  of  the  scope  to 
cover not only international journeys but also all national ones. Other important amendments 
proposed concerned the liability scheme, a review of the compensation levels and conditions 
proposed in case of delays or cancellations and, finally, a limitation of obligations on railway 
undertakings  to  offer  tickets  and  transport  information  for  all  main  services  within  the  EU. 
The Commission reacted to the European Parliament’s opinion in first reading by accepting in 
full  19  amendments,  in  principle  49  thereof  and  partially  16.  It  rejected  completely  38 
amendments. 

4.1  Amendments  accepted  by  the  Commission  and  incorporated  in  full  or  in  part  in  the 
common position  

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

Part of amendment 3 and amendments 10, 23, 27, 44, 45, 46, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 
59, to some extent 64, 77, 78, 80, 81, 82 and 83, request the alignment of the liability regime 
governing railway undertakings to the international agreement COTIF/CIV (Vilnius protocol 
of 1999, which entered into force in 2006) or simply contain references to COTIF/CIV. The 
amendments to specific provisions may be considered redundant because Recitals 6 and 13, 
Article 10 (liability in relation to death and injury of passengers and damage of their luggage), 
Article 13 (liability in relation to delay, missed connection and cancellation) and in particular 
Annex  1  of  the  Common  Position,  in  a  simple  and  concise  form,  introduce  the  relevant 
provisions of COTIF/CIV on liability into the regulation.  

Amendments 6 and 76 propose details in relation to the way assistance is offered to Persons 
with  reduced  mobility  in  case  of  delay.  Article  16(5)  of  the  Common  Position  confirms 
persons  with  reduced  mobility’s  right  to  particular  attention  for  their  needs  when  receiving 
assistance  in  case  of  delay.  Details  concerning  the  way  such  assistance  shall  be  offered  are 
mentioned in Recital 10 of the Common Position.  

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
Amendment  18  proposes  changes  to  the  definition  of  “reservation”  which  the  Common 
Position in Article 3(9) modifies even more radically. 

Amendments  20,  61  and  120  propose  a  simplification  to  the  compensation  scheme 
establishing  the  refund  of  the  ticket  price  in  case  of  delay  proposed  by  the  Commission 
proposal. Article 15 of the Common Position takes over the principal structure proposed by 
the European  Parliament while limiting possible  refund  to  a  maximum  of  50%  of  the  ticket 
price. 

Amendment 24 on the deletion of a definition of working timetables has been followed by the 
Common Position. 

Amendments  25,  36  and  42  relate  to  the  organisation  of  the  provision  of  information  and 
ticketing  as  requested  by  the  regulation  and  the  possible  use  of  a  European  Computer 
Information and Reservation System (CIRS). Article 9 of the Common Position incorporates 
the request to establish a CIRS and obliges the Commission, Member States and the European 
railway agency to cooperate in order to develop a Technical Specification of Interoperability 
as  referred  to  in  Directive  2001/16/EC  on  information  and  ticketing.  The  scope  of  the 
mentioned legal basis may need further considerations. 

Amendments  32,  33  34,  35,  108  and,  in  part,  138  request  the  alignment  of  provisions  on 
transport contracts and ticketing to the international agreement COTIF/CIV (Vilnius protocol 
of 1999, which entered into force in 2006) or simply contain references to COTIF/CIV. The 
amendments to specific provisions may be considered redundant because Recital 6 , Article 4 
(provision  on  transport  contracts)  and  in  particular  Annex  1  of  the  Common  Position,  in  a 
simple  and  concise  form,  introduce  the  relevant  provisions  of  COTIF/CIV  on  transport 
contracts and ticketing into the regulation. 

Part of amendment 67, requests that passengers suffering a delay are promptly transported to 
their final destination. Article 14 of the Common Position incorporates this idea while going 
further  by  requesting  railway  undertakings  to  offer  passengers  “immediately”  a  choice 
between re-routing and reimbursement of the ticket price, etc.  

Amendments  70,  71,  72  (the  Commission  has  however  not  accepted  the  limitation  of  this 
obligation via the term "where possible") and 73 request passenger consent for consequential 
action  by  railway  undertakings  in  case  of  re-routing  and  continuation  of  the  journey  due  to 
delay and propose several clarifications in relation to ad hoc assistance to be offered in case of 
delay. Articles 14(1)c and 16(2) of the Common Position take account of these proposals. 

Amendment 86 proposes limits to the assistance offered to Persons with reduced mobility in 
relation  to  the  capacity  available.  Article  17  of  the  Common  Position  allows  railway 
undertakings  to  establish  beforehand  non-discriminatory  access  rules  for  Persons  with 
reduced mobility. The Common Position does however not foresee any obligation to increase 
capacity. 

Amendments  87  and  126  make  adjustments  to  the  duties  of  station  managers,  railway 
undertakings including on board train staff as to the Persons with reduced mobility assistance 
to be provided. Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Common Position render duties on the parties 
involved,  and  in  particular  railway  undertakings  and  station  managers  clear,  simple  and 
realistic.  Article  18  of  the  Common  Position  assures  ticket  sale  to  Persons  with  reduced 
mobility for no additional costs. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
Amendment  92  simplifies  the  person  with  reduced  mobility’s  right  to  assistance  in  the 
absence of prior notification for it. For such cases Article 21 assures ad hoc assistance based 
on best effort. 

Amendments  99  and  100  are  being  reflected  in  Article  23  of  the  Common  Position  by 
changing the term “security” to “personal security”. 

Amendments  105  and  106  requesting  to  relief  the  burden  put  on  railway  undertakings  in 
relation to complaint handling are transposed by Article 24 of the Common Position leaving 
within a justified framework most of the details on the complaint handling mechanism to be 
decided by the railway undertakings themselves. 

First  part  of  amendment  109  deletes  the  obligation  to  inform  passengers  of  any  plans  on 
discontinuation  or  alteration  of  services.  Article  6  of  the  Common  Position  changes  the 
information obligation to refer to decisions instead of plans.  

Amendments 114, part of amendement 115, 116 and 117 request adjustment to the minimum 
travel  information  offered  to  passengers  by  railway  undertakings.  Article  7  and  Annex  II 
clarify  the  contents  of  the  minimum  information  on  own  services  to  be  offered  to  the 
passenger. 

4.2  Amendments  accepted  by  the  Commission  and  not  incorporated  in  the  Common 
Position 

Amendments 5, 8, 9, 38 (partially, see also below), part of 67, 68, 79, 85, 90, 103 and 104, 
request  the  deletion  of  the  term  “international”.  The  Commission  is  of  the  view  that  the 
deletion of this term in the respective provisions does not prejudge the question of the scope 
of the regulation. The Common Position however having no intention to extend the scope of 
the  regulation  to  all  rail  services,  including  domestic  services,  has  in  no  way  systematically 
deleted references to the term “international”. 

Amendment 15 requests to clarify the definition of “Railway undertaking”. This amendment 
may  be  considered  redundant  because  the  Common  Position  refers  to  existing  Community 
legislation:  Article  3,  paragraph  1  defines  “Railway  undertaking”  in  line  with  Directive 
2001/14/EC, Article 2 (Scope) refers to the definition in Directive 95/18/EC.  

Amendments  21  and  22  request  not  to  consider  delays  and  expected  delays  due  to 
cancellation, which have been announced to the passenger 48 hours in advance. The Common 
Position does not foresee any such provision. The definition of “delay” in Article 3(15) may 
be used to clarify this matter. 

Amendment 30 requests to provide information in a format accessible to Persons with reduced 
mobility with visual or sensory impairments. The Common Position does not foresee any such 
provision. Article 7(3) of the Common Position is best suited for an according adaptation. 

Amendment  38  requests  sale  of  tickets  in  an  accessible  form.  Although  Article  8  of  the 
Common Position on the availability of tickets does not reflect this idea, Recital (10) of the 
Common  Position  grants  Persons  with  reduced  mobility’s  right  to  obtain  tickets  on  board  a 
train without surcharges. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
Amendments  43,  48,  55  and  98  on  the  titles  and  structure  of  the  regulation  are  not  being 
followed  because  the  Common  Position  proposes  a  different  structure  (see  structure  of  the 
regulation). 

Amendments 47 and 58 refuse or limit the right to advance payment in case of death or injury 
of the passenger. Article 12 of the Common Position however confirms this right, proposed 
by the Commission, which is also granted to air passengers. 

Amendment  66  requests  to  apply  the  legal  consequences  in  relation  to  the  delay  of  rail 
services also when the provision of confirmed assistance to a person with reduced mobility is 
delayed. The Common Position does not foresee any such provision. Only in relation to delay 
related  assistance  the  specific  needs  of  persons  with  reduced  mobility  are  separately 
mentioned. 

Amendment  69  requests  that  re-routing  or  continuation  of  services  may  involve  more 
expensive services at the same original price paid for the ticket. The Common Position does 
not foresee this possibility but refers “to comparable conditions”. 

Amendment 75 requests that the railway undertaking certifies a delay endured by passengers. 
The Common Position does not foresee such a duty, which may easily be obtained by deleting 
“at the passenger’s request” from Article 16(4). 

Second and third part of amendment 109 request railway undertaking, station managers, tour 
operators  and  the  Commission  to  cooperate  in  order  to  offer  information  on  the  passenger 
rights enshrined in the regulation The Commission agrees in principal to inform passengers of 
their rights under the regulation in an appropriate form and refers to similar action undertaken 
in relation to passenger rights in the air sector (Air passenger rights poster).  

Amendments  110,  111  and  112  on  national  enforcement  bodies  and  on  the  publicity  of 
information  concerning  these  bodies  are  incorporated  to  a  large  extent  in  Article  26  and 
Annex II of the Common Position. 

Part of amendment 124 increases the period by which ad hoc compensation in case of delay 
has to be paid to 1 month instead of 14 days. While the Commission had been flexible on this 
issue, the Common Position does not change the Commission proposal to pay compensation 
within 14 days after receipt of the complaint. 

Part of amendment 138 requests an obligation on railway undertakings to carry bicycles. As 
the  two  legislators  agree  to  submit  the  contents  of  a  transport  contract  in  principal  to  the 
COTIF/CIV rules on the subject matter, the obligation in relation to the transport of bicycles 
has been abandoned. 

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

Amendments 1, 2, part of amendment 3, 11, 12 (partially, see also below), 13, 17 (partially, 
see also below) and 62 (partially, see also below), intend to propose rights and obligations for 
railways  passenger  irrespective  of  the  fact  that  they  make  a  national  or  an  international 
journey Thus European Parliament requests to enlarge the scope to all services, international 
as well as domestic, an amendment which the Commission appreciates but considers perhaps 
premature at this stage. Contrary to the European Parliament, Article 2, paragraphs 1 and 2 of 
the  Common  Position  confirm  (for  general  issues  and  liability  of  railway  undertakings)  or 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
reduce (for consequences due to delays, etc.) the scope proposed by the Commission. Only in 
relation  to  persons  with  reduced  mobility  Article  2,  paragraph  3  enlarges  the  scope  to 
domestic voyages on international services. 

Amendments 7 and 125 propose to oblige railway undertakings and station managers by this 
regulation  to  render  rolling  stock  and  stations  accessible  for  persons  with  reduced  mobility. 
The  Commission  considers  that  such  an  obligation  goes  beyond  the  scope  of  the  present 
proposal.  

Amendment  12  and  part  of  amendment  39  referring  to  public  service  contracts  are  not 
considered relevant. International services (see also scope) are rarely subject to public service 
contracts and therefore the Common Position does not particularly mention the term, without 
explicitly excluding from the scope of the regulation the obligation to apply passenger rights 
to public service contracts. 

Amendment 16 proposes changes to the definition of “main railway station” a term no longer 
used by the regulation, which, in Article 19 of the Common Position, links the obligations of 
station  managers  in  relation  to  assistance  for  persons  with  reduced  mobility  to  “staffed 
railway stations”. The definition of “main railway station” therefore becomes obsolete. 

Amendments 17 and 62 referring to season tickets are not considered relevant. Season tickets 
are  hardly  available  for  international  services  (see  also  scope)  and  therefore  the  Common 
Position considers not necessary to particularly mention this term, without however explicitly 
excluding season tickets from the scope of the regulation.  

Amendment  19  aligns  the  definition  to  COTIF/CIV.  This  amendment  may  be  considered 
redundant:  Article  3,  paragraphs  11,  12,  13  and  14  of  the  Common  Position  clearly  define 
international  as  well  as  domestic  journeys  and  services,  respectively,  in  a  clear  and  concise 
manner without contradicting COTIF/CIV. 

Amendment 26 proposes changes to the definition of “persons with reduced mobility”. In the 
meantime  a  definition  is  given  by  the  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council  concerning  the  rights  of  persons  with  reduced  mobility  when  travelling  by  air 
(adopted  on  8  June  2006,  not  yet  published).  This  definition  for  “persons  with  reduced 
mobility” from aviation is taken over in Article 3(17) of the Common Position. 

Amendment  31  requests  that  railway  undertakings  and  tour  operators  (ticket  vendors)  are 
being held liable for inaccurate information. Nothing in the regulation prevents that principles 
of national private law apply to such cases.  

Amendments  60,  118  and  119  are  based  on  the  request  that  passengers  get  surcharges 
refunded  for  service  quality  not  obtained,  other  than  delay  of  service.  Rights  related  to  this 
request are being considered excessive and therefore no such obligations were introduced into 
the Common Position. 

Amendment 64, to a large extent, requests the deduction of a compensation of the ticket price 
(for poor service) from other compensation, like for example, damage compensation in case 
of  liability  for  consequential  damage.  Contrary  to  that  Article  15  of  the  Common  Position 
confirms  that  the  ad  hoc  compensation  refunding  the  ticket  price  in  case  of  delay,  missed 
connection  due  to  a  delay  or  cancellation,  is  distinct  from  compensation  of  consequential 
damage  governed  by  Article  13  of  the  Common  Position,  which  refers  to  the  COTIF/CIV 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
provisions on the subject matter. The proposed deduction has therefore not been incorporated 
into the Common Position. 

Amendment 65 proposes to oblige railway undertakings to avoid by all means delays. Such 
obligation is considered little precise and difficult to enforce. 

Amendment 74 restricts ad hoc assistance for passengers on trains blocked outside stations to 
situations not involving exceptional circumstances. Although the situation may not have been 
caused by the railway undertaking it requests its intervention to the benefit of the passenger 
without  any  other  alternative  for  assistance.  The  Common  Position  therefore  rejects  the 
European  Parliament’s  request  but  restricts  assistance  to  those  cases  where  it  is  physically 
possible.  

Amendment 84 requests a clarification in relation to the railway undertakings right to claim, 
where  relevant,  compensation  from  the  infrastructure  manager.  Nothing  in  the  Common 
Position  restricts  in  whatever  form  any  right  of  recourse  the  railway  undertaking  may  have 
against  third  parties.  In  addition,  in  principal  the  Common  Position  exonerates  the  railway 
undertaking’s liability in case of fault of third parties.  

Amendments 101, 102, 107 and 121 propose the deletion of obligatory assessment of quality 
standards  but  introduce  a  rather  heavy  procedure  involving  the  European  Railway  Agency. 
The  Common  Position  proposes  self-assessment  of  quality  standards  by  the  railway 
undertakings  themselves  while  requesting  at  the  same  time  strict  conditions  on  how  self-
assessment has to be performed and rendered public. It considers not necessary at this stage to 
involve the European Railway Agency with monitoring of quality. 

Amendment  127  requests  training  measures  to  better  assist  persons  with  reduced  mobility. 
This proposal goes far beyond the scope of the present regulation. In the context of the third 
railway package, the Commission has however tabled a proposal for a Directive to improve 
train crews safety performance. 

Amendment  128  makes  adjustments  to  the  duties  of  station  managers  in  relation  to  contact 
points  for  persons  with  reduced  mobility.  Article  21  of  the  Common  Position  confirms  this 
duty of the station manager as proposed by the Commission in its original text, while adding a 
reference to other public bodies likely to share the responsibility. 

4.4  Amendments  rejected  by  the  Commission  and  incorporated  in  full  or  in  part  in  the 
common position  

Amendments 4, 14 and 37 request the weakening of the obligation the Commission proposed 
for railway undertakings to provide tickets, through-tickets and respective travel information 
throughout the EU rail network. The Commission was of the opinion that passengers have a 
right to purchase integrated tickets for journeys throughout the EU railway network and has 
therefore chosen to oblige railway undertakings to offer such a product as the railway market 
seems not respond voluntarily. Article 8 of the Common Position leaves the choice of offer to 
the railway undertakings by requesting that tickets, through-tickets and reservations shall be 
sold to passengers in so far as available. A European Computer Information and Reservation 
System (CIRS) for rail services shall further substantiate this demand (Article 9).  

Amendments 28, 29 and part of amendment 115 request the weakening of the obligation the 
Commission  proposed  for  railway  undertakings  to  provide  travel  information.  The 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
Commission  was  of  the  opinion  that  passengers  have  a  right  to  receive  relevant  travel 
information and also information beyond the railway undertakings own network for journeys 
throughout  the  EU.  As  voluntary  arrangements  do  not  always  serve  this  purpose  the 
Commission has chosen to oblige railway undertakings to offer EU wide travel information. 
Article 7 and Annex II clarify the contents of the minimum information on own services to be 
offered to the passenger. A European Computer Information and Reservation System (CIRS) 
for rail services shall further substantiate this demand (Article 9). 

Part of amendment 39, amendments 40 and 123 propose modifications to the way tickets have 
to be sold. Article 8 of the Common Position gives a great flexibility to railway undertakings 
in order to choose the way best fitted for sales of tickets. On board sale shall be granted unless 
such service is restricted in justified cases. The Commission did not want to jeopardize more 
than necessary spontaneous purchase, including purchase on board of a train. It did not see a 
necessity to distinguish between selling points for public service tickets and other tickets. 

Amendment  91,  95  96,  97  propose  clarifications  to  the  notification  procedure  concerning 
persons  with  reduced  mobility  for  specific  assistance.  Article  21  of  the  Common  Position 
simplifies this procedure and the conditions under which assistance is offered to a person with 
reduced  mobility  having  notified  need  for  assistance  at  the  latest  48  hours  in  advance.  The 
Commission did not want to reduce the rights of persons with reduced mobility unnecessarily 
and was therefore against the proposed increase in the prior notification period from 24 to 48 
hours. 

Amendment  113  requests  1  year  whereas  Article  33  of  the  Common  Position  grants  18 
months  implementation  period  before  the  regulation  enters  into  force.  The  Commission 
considered  a  long  transition  period  not  necessary  to  implement  the  proposed  rights  to 
passenger. 

Part  of  amendment  124  requests  consent  of  the  passenger  to  pay  the  compensation  in 
vouchers, which is transposed by Article 15(2) last sentence of the Common Position. 

5- 

CONCLUSION 

While it would have preferred an obligation on railway undertakings to offer information on 
timetables and through-tickets throughout the European railway network as well as a higher 
commitment  by  station  managers  and  railway  undertakings  in  relation  to  the  assistance 
offered to persons with reduced mobility, the Commission considers that the common position 
adopted unanimously on 24 July 2006 does not alter the aims and approach of its proposal. 

EN 

10 

   EN