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 Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2004/49/EC on safety on the Community’s railways
Date: 2008-03-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Union Agency for Railways, approval, rail network, rail transport, technical regulations, technical standard, trans-European network, vehicle on rails

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 7.3.2008 
COM (2008) 137 final 

2006/0272 (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 Directive of the European 
Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2004/49/EC on safety on the 
Community’s railways 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
2006/0272 (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 Directive of the European 
Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2004/49/EC on safety on the 
Community’s railways 

1. 

BACKGROUND 

Date of transmission of the proposal to the European Parliament and 
the Council (document COM(2006) 784 final – 2006/0272 COD): 

13.12.2006 

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

11.07.2007 

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

29.11.2007 

Date of adoption of the common position (by unanimity) 

03.03.2008 

2. 

OBJECTIVE OF THE COMMISSION PROPOSAL 

On 13 December 2006 the European Commission adopted a series of measures to support the 
revitalisation  of  the  railway  sector  by  removing  obstacles  to  the  movement  of  trains 
throughout the European rail network.  

The Commission launched this initiative for two main reasons: 

–  to facilitate the free movement of trains within the EU by making the procedure for putting 

locomotives into service more transparent and more efficient. 

–  to  simplify  the  regulatory  environment  by  consolidating  and  merging  the  directives  on 

railway interoperability.  

One of these measures consists of amending Directive 2004/49/EC on rail safety. In making 
this proposal, the Commission had three objectives: 

–  the  introduction  of  the  principle  of  mutual  recognition  by  other  Member  States  of 
authorisations  already  issued  by  a  Member  State  for  placing  equipment  into  service. 
According to this principle, rolling stock already authorised to be put into service in  one 
Member  State  should  not  be  required  to  undergo  complementary  certification  in  another 
Member  State  as  regards  the  additional  national  requirements  arising,  for  example,  from 
local system specifications; 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
–  the  extension  of  the  Agency's  powers  to  enable  it  to  make  an  inventory  of  the  different 
national procedures and technical regulations in force and to establish and update (extend) 
the  list  of  requirements  where  compliance  should  be  checked  once  only  because  the 
requirements concern internationally accepted rules or can be deemed to be equivalent to 
them.  

–  the  clarification  of  the  relationship  between  the  rail  company  and  the  entity  in  charge  of 
maintenance.  The  entry  into  force  of  the  new  1999  COTIF  Convention  (concerning 
international carriage by rail) has brought in new rules governing contracts for the use of 
vehicles. There is therefore a proposal to define the keeper of a wagon and to specify the 
relationship between the company and the keeper, in particular as regards maintenance.  

3. 

COMMENTS ON THE COMMON POSITION 

The three institutions tried to secure an early agreement at first reading of this file. However, 
this was not possible due to the requests of the European Parliament, mainly concerning the 
definition  of  the  relationship  between  railway  companies  and  vehicle  keepers  as  regards 
maintenance.  

The  Council's  common  position  adopted  by  unanimity  does  not  undermine  the  essential 
objectives and the underlying approach of the Commission's proposal.  

Furthermore,  the  common  position  of  the  Council  already  incorporates  some  of  the 
amendments  adopted  by  the  European  Parliament  at  the  first  reading  and  ensures  the 
necessary  consistency  with  the  recast  of  the  directives  on  railway  interoperability  (proposal 
COM(2006)783 final – 2006/273 (COD)), on which agreement was reached at first reading. 
In  particular,  it  was  agreed  to  transfer  the  content  of  Article  14  of  the  Railway  Safety 
Directive (as well as the new Article 14a) to the new Interoperability Directive with the aim 
of gathering together in one single act all the procedures related to bringing railway vehicles 
into service. 

4. 

COMMISSION DETAILED COMMENTS 

4.1. 

Amendments  of  the  European  Parliament  accepted  by  the  Commission  and 
incorporated in full or in part in the common position 

Amendments 2, 9, 19, 20, 24, 25, 26 and 27, which clarify, spell out or complement the 
Commission's proposal.  

Amendments  1,  10,  11,  12,  13,  15  and  23,  but  they  need  to  be  adapted  to  the  standard 
terminology  stemming  from  Council  Decision  2006/512/EC  amending  Decision 
1999/468/EC  laying  down  the  procedures  for  the  exercising  of  implementing  powers 
conferred on the Commission.  

Amendment 8: The reference to the NVR (National Vehicle Register) is in keeping with the 
Commission Decision on the NVR of 9 November 20071. However, this definition has been 

1 

OJ L305, 23.11.2007, p. 30. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
amended by the Council in its common position in order to make it consistent with the new 
article on vehicle maintenance.  

With regard to amendment 18, the first paragraph is no longer necessary as it was agreed to 
transfer the content of Article 14 to the new directive on railway interoperability. 

4.2. 

Amendments of the European Parliament rejected by the Commission and not 
incorporated in full or in part in the common position 

Amendment  3  because  the  link  between  the  Interoperability  Directive  and  Directive 
89/391/EEC  (on  the  introduction  of  measures  to  encourage  improvements  in  the  safety  and 
health  of  workers  at  work  and  laying  down  specific  provisions  to  minimise  the  risks  of  rail 
transport for employees) is already commented upon in Recital 14 of the Directive currently 
in force. 

Amendments 4, 5, 6 and 7 since it would not be advisable to amend the original definition of 
“national safety rules” as it appears in Directive 2004/49/EC on the safety of railways, which 
has just been transposed by the Member States. This definition has never been challenged by 
the  players  involved.  As  regards  their  substance,  national  safety  rules  are  not  all  related  to 
essential requirements of the directives on railway interoperability. Some, for example, cover 
the environment.  

As far as amendment 14 is concerned, the CSTs (Common Safety Targets) and the procedure 
for  adopting  them  were  agreed  upon  in  2004.  Work  has  already  made  good  progress  and  it 
would not be appropriate to change the assumptions on which it is based whilst the process is 
still under way. A cost-benefit analysis is already provided for in Article 6(4) of the original 
Directive. 

Amendments 16 and 17, which refer to a high level of safety and for which a wording more 
consistent with the rest of the directive was formulated in the context of the common position 
of the Council.  

Amendment  22,  which  dealt  with  the  possibility  of  requesting  a  technical  opinion  from  the 
Railways Agency if the safety authority refused to issue safety certificates or safety approvals, 
goes further than the objectives set out in the Commission’s proposal. 

4.3. 

Amendments of the European Parliament acceptable to the Commission but not 
incorporated in full or in part in the common position 

Amendment  21,  which  the  Commission  had  accepted  in  principle.  However,  the  text  of  the 
common position  is based on the  concept of "the entity in charge of maintenance" which is 
now part of the new Community regulatory framework (it is defined in the "wagons2" TSI and 
in the Decision on the NVR referred to above). Moreover, whether the system for certifying 
owners  is  to  be  obligatory  or  voluntary  should  not  be  stipulated  in  the  Directive  but  after 
completion of the impact study to be conducted by the Agency. 

2 

OJ L 344, 8.12.2006, p. 1. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
5. 

CONCLUSION 

The Commission considers that the common position of the Council adopted by unanimity on 
3 March 2008  contributes  to  the  essential  objectives  and  the  underlying  approach  of  its 
proposal, and can therefore support it. 

EN 

5 

   EN