COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation from the European Parliament and the Council on rail passengers' rights and obligations (recast)
Date: 2017-09-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: carriage of passengers, common transport policy, consumer protection, disabled person, high-speed transport, liability, passenger tariff, rail transport, transport company

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 21.11.2017  SWD(2017) 318 final/2  CORRIGENDUM   This document corrects document SWD(2017) 318 final of 27.9.2017  Missing annexes are added The text shall read as follows: COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  IMPACT ASSESSMENT  Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation from the European Parliament and the Council   on rail passengers' rights and obligations  (recast)  
 
 
Table of Contents 

1  WHAT IS THE PROBLEM AND WHY IS IT A PROBLEM? ................................. 5 

1.1  Policy Context and Key Problems at Stake ....................................................... 5 
1.2  Description of the main problems linked to the current application of 

the rail passenger rights legislation (Part I) ..................................................... 11 
1.2.1  Major issues with the regulation ...................................................................... 11 
1.2.1.1 

Problems  linked  to  the  scope  of  the  rail  passenger  rights 
legislation (Exemptions) .................................................................................. 11 

1.2.1.2 

Problems  linked  to 

the  protection  of  passengers  with 

1.2.1.3 

1.2.1.4 

disabilities or reduced mobility ....................................................................... 14 
Information  for  passengers  about  their  rights  and  passenger 
awareness ......................................................................................................... 17 
Compensation and assistance to passengers in case of missed 
connections, delays or cancellations ................................................................ 19 
1.2.1.5 
Enforcement: NEB complaint handling and cooperation .................. 22 
1.2.2  Secondary issues with the regulation .............................................................. 23 
1.2.2.1 

Discrimination  on  the  basis  of  nationality,  residence  or 
currency ........................................................................................................... 23 
Definitions ......................................................................................... 24 
CIV .................................................................................................... 25 
Assistance 

in  case  of  major  disruptions  (contingency 

1.2.2.2 
1.2.2.3 
1.2.2.4 

planning) .......................................................................................................... 26 
Complaint handling by railway undertakings .................................... 27 

1.2.2.5 
1.3  Description  of  the  main  problems  linked  to  the  issue  of  "force 

majeure" (Part II – see Figure I) ...................................................................... 27 
  How would the problem evolve, all things being equal? (Baseline) ............... 31 

1.4

1.4.1  Part  I  –  problems  linked  to  the  current  application  of  the  rail 

passenger rights legislation ................................................................ 31 
1.4.2 Part II –problems linked to the issue of "force majeure" ....................... 34 

2  WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? .............................................................................. 35 

3  WHAT SHOULD BE ACHIEVED? (PART I) ........................................................ 37 

3.1  General policy objective .................................................................................. 37 
Specific objectives ........................................................................................... 37 
Interrelation with other EU policies ................................................................ 38 

3.2 

4  WHAT  ARE  THE  VARIOUS  OPTIONS  TO  ACHIEVE  THE 

OBJECTIVES? (PART I) ......................................................................................... 39 

4.1  Methodology of the policy options construction (PART I) ............................. 39 
4.2  Retained regulatory policy measures ............................................................... 40 
Measures regarding the protection of passenger rights ............................................. 44 

1 

 
 
 
Discrimination on the basis of nationality, residence or currency ............................ 44 
4.3  Other (discarded) potential policy measures ................................................... 45 
4.4  Policy  options  addressing  the  problems  linked 

to  the  current 

application of the Regulation (Part I of the problem definition) ..................... 46 
Major issues ..................................................................................................... 46 
Secondary issues .............................................................................................. 48 

5  WHAT  ARE  THE  IMPACTS  OF  THE  DIFFERENT  POLICY  OPTIONS 

AND HOW DO THE OPTIONS COMPARE? (PART I) ........................................ 48 

5.1  General methodological considerations .......................................................... 48 
Issues linked to the economic analysis ...................................................................... 48 
5.2  Analysis of policy options ............................................................................... 50 
Measures to address major issues .................................................................... 50 
Policy  scenarios  to  address  issues  linked  to  the  scope  of  the  rail 

passengers legislation (exemptions for all passengers) .................... 50 
Policy scenarios to address issues linked to PRM rights ................................ 54 
Policy  scenarios  to  address  issues  linked  information  provisions  for 

all passengers .................................................................................... 61 

Policy  scenarios  to  address  issues  linked  to  the  compensation  and 
assistance  to  passengers  in  case  of  missed  connections, 
delays or cancellations ...................................................................... 64 

Policy  scenarios  to  address  issues  linked  to  the  complaint  handling 

and enforcement (NEB complaint handling and cooperation) .......... 66 
Measures to address secondary issues ............................................................. 66 
Policy scenario to address issues linked to discrimination on the basis 

of nationality, residence or currency ................................................. 66 

Policy  scenario  to  address  issues  linked  to  clarification  of  unclear 

definitions .......................................................................................... 67 

Policy  scenario  to  address  issues  linked  to  uniform  rules  concerning 
the  Contract  for  International  Carriage  of  Passengers  and 
Luggage by Rail (CIV) ....................................................................... 68 
Policy scenario to address issues linked to contingency planning .................. 68 
Policy scenario to address issues linked to right to redress ........................... 69 
Policy  scenario  to  address  issues  linked  to  complaint  handling  for 

railway undertakings ......................................................................... 69 
5.3  The preferred policy option ............................................................................. 69 

6 

PROBLEMS  LINKED  TO  THE  ISSUE  OF  "FORCE  MAJEURE"  (PART 
II) ............................................................................................................................... 76 

6.1  What should be achieved? ............................................................................... 76 
General policy objective .................................................................................. 76 
Specific objectives ........................................................................................... 76 
6.2  What are the various options to achieve the objectives? ................................. 76 

2 

 
 
Retained  policy  measures  addressing  the  problems  linked  to  "force 

majeure" ............................................................................................ 76 

Policy  option/scenarios  addressing  the  problems  linked  to  the  "force 

majeure" ............................................................................................ 77 

6.3  What  are  the  impacts  of  the  different  policy  options  (scenarios)  and 

how do they compare? ..................................................................................... 78 
General methodological considerations .......................................................... 78 
Issues linked to the economic analysis ............................................................ 78 
Analysis of policy scenarios addressing the problems linked to "force 

majeure" ............................................................................................ 78 

7  MONITORING AND EVALUATION ..................................................................... 82 

ANNEX  1:  PROCEDURAL  INFORMATION  CONCERNING  THE  PROCESS 
TO  PREPARE  THE  IMPACT  ASSESSMENT  REPORT  AND  THE 
RELATED INITIATIVE .......................................................................................... 90 

Evidence used in the impact assessment ................................................................... 96 
External expertise ...................................................................................................... 97 

ANNEXE 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION SYNOPSIS REPORT .................... 98 

PRM organisations ........................................................................................ 105 
Public Authorities .......................................................................................... 105 
Industry federations ....................................................................................... 105 
Infrastructure managers ................................................................................ 105 

ANNEX 3: STAKEHOLDERS AFFECTED ................................................................. 132 

ANNEX 4: IMPACT ASSESSMENT TOOL METHODOLOGY................................. 135 

Introduction ............................................................................................................. 135 
Policy measures assessed in the IA Tool ................................................................. 135 
Assessment  of  Impacts  from  Introduction  of  Measures  Related  to 

Informing Passengers (IN) (PM1-PM4) .......................................... 136 

Assessment  of  Impacts  from  the  Introduction  of  Exemptions  (EX) 

(PM5-PM8) ...................................................................................... 137 

Assessment  of 

Impact 

from 

introduction  of  PRM  Training 

Accessibility measure (PM13) ........................................................ 138 

Assessment of Impacts from introduction of a ‘Force Majeure’ clause 

(PM 26) ............................................................................................ 138 
Impacts and Metrics ................................................................................................ 139 
Passenger Demand ......................................................................................... 139 
Passenger Welfare ......................................................................................... 139 
Compensation and Cost of Assistance Payments .......................................... 139 
Data Sources and Assumptions ............................................................................... 141 
Passenger demand and mode share ............................................................... 141 
Split of demand by journey type ................................................................... 142 

3 

 
 
Compensation Costs ...................................................................................... 142 
Data sources and input in the IA Tool ..................................................................... 147 
Results of the Tool .................................................................................................. 156 
Baseline Scenario .................................................................................................... 156 
PART I – Problems linked to the current application of the Regulation ................ 159 
Policy  options  to  address  issues  linked  to  the  scope  of  the  rail  passengers 

legislation (exemptions for all passengers) ................................................... 159 
Policy scenario A ........................................................................................... 159 
Policy scenario B ........................................................................................... 160 
Policy scenario C ........................................................................................... 160 
Policy options to address issues linked to PRM rights .................................. 161 
PRM rights are applicable on all services ..................................................... 161 
Information provisions for PRMs ............................................................................ 163 
Sensitivity Analysis ....................................................................................... 164 
Assistance for PRMs at the stations and on board trains ....................................... 164 
Information provisions for all passengers ..................................................... 165 
Sensitivity  Analysis  (policy  scenario  on  information  and  policy 

scenario A for exemptions for all passengers) ................................ 166 

Sensitivity  Analysis  (policy  scenario  on  information  and  preferred 

policy scenario B for exemptions for all passengers) ...................... 167 

Sensitivity  Analysis  (policy  scenario  on  information  and  policy 

scenario C for exemptions for all passengers) ................................. 168 
PART II - Policy options addressing the problems linked to "force majeure" ....... 169 
Narrow definition of "force majeure" ............................................................ 169 
Sensitivity  Analysis  (policy  scenario  A  on  "force  majeure"  and 

preferred policy options) ................................................................. 170 
Broad definition of "force majeure" situations .............................................. 171 
Sensitivity  Analysis  (policy  scenario  b  on  "force  majeure"  and 

preferred policy options) ................................................................. 172 

ANNEX 5: COMPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ..................................................... 174 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
1  WHAT IS THE PROBLEM AND WHY IS IT A PROBLEM? 

1.1  Policy Context and Key Problems at Stake 

Policy Context 

A  Deeper  and  Fairer  Internal  Market  where  consumer  interests  and  social  policy are  at 
the core of the single market is one of the ten policy priorities1 of the Commission. The 
Commission  adopted  passenger  rights  legislation  for  all  modes  of  transport  (air,  rail, 
waterborne  and  bus  and  coach)  between  2004  and  2011.  This  legislation  ensures 
minimum protection for passengers in the EU, including persons with reduced mobility, 
when the journey is not carried out as scheduled and provides for rules on liability in the 
event  of  accidents2.  The  Regulations  establish  ten  basic  core  passenger  rights: (1)  non-
discrimination in access to transport; (2) assistance at no additional cost for persons with 
disabilities or reduced mobility; (3) information before purchase and at the various stages 
of travel, notably in case of transport disruption; (4) right to renounce travelling when the 
trip is not carried out as planned by the carrier; (5) fulfilment of the transport contract in 
the event of transport disruption; (6) assistance in situations of long delay at departure or 
at connecting points; (7) financial compensation under certain circumstances; (8) carrier 
liability  towards  passengers  and  their  baggage;  (9)  an  effective  system  of  complaint 
handling; and (10) full application and effective enforcement of EU law. 
Regulation  (EC)  No  1371/2007  on  rail  passengers'  rights  and  obligations3  (the 
Regulation) is part of this comprehensive set of passenger rights legislation. It has been 
applicable since December 2009 and, as  part of the "third railway package" of 2007, it 
aims to improve the attractiveness of rail passenger transport and its market functioning. 
It ensures a minimum level of protection for all rail passengers across the EU, including 
specific rights for persons with disabilities or reduced mobility4 (PRMs) thus enhancing 
the  social  inclusion  of  PRMs.  It  also  promotes  a  more  level  playing  field  for  rail 
operators in the EU with regard to passenger protection. The Regulation establishes the 
liability of railway undertakings towards passengers (including PRMs) and their luggage 
while  using  rail  services.  This  is  the  case,  in  particular,  with  regard  to  information, 
contracting,  assistance  and  financial  compensation  to  passengers  in  the  event  of  long 
delay(s)  or  missed  connection(s).  It  lays  down  provisions  on  service  quality  standards, 
the  handling  of  complaints  and  general  rules  on  enforcement.  Under  the  Regulation, 
Member  States  have  to  designate  national  enforcement  bodies  (NEBs)  who  have  to 
ensure  that  the  rights  of  passengers  are  respected.  Passengers  may  complain  to  these 
bodies  about  alleged  infringements  of  the  Regulation.  NEBs  have  to  cooperate  and 
exchange information to coordinate their tasks across the EU. Member States also have 

1   A New Start for Europe: My Agenda for Jobs, Growth, Fairness and Democratic Change Political Guidelines for 
the  next European  Commission,  Opening  Statement  in  the  European  Parliament  Plenary  Session  Strasbourg,  15 
July 2014  

2   Air transport: Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 and proposal COM (2013) 130 for its amendment, Regulation (EC) 
No.  889/2002  and  Regulation  (EC)  No.  1107/2006;  Rail  transport:  Regulation  (EC)  No.  1371/2007;  Sea  and 
inland waterway: Regulation (EU) No. 1177/2010; Bus and Coach transport: Regulation (EU) No. 181/2011. 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:315:0014:0041:EN:PDF 

3  
4   PRM  is  considered  any  person  whose  mobility  when  using  transport  is  reduced  due  to  any  physical  disability 
(sensory  or  locomotor,  permanent  or  temporary),  intellectual  disability  or  impairment,  or  any  other  cause  of 
disability, or age, and whose situation needs appropriate attention and the adaptation to his or her particular needs 
of the service made available to all passengers. 

5 

 
 
                                                 
to set up rules for effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties for infringements of 
the Regulation.  

The Regulation builds on the existing system of international law contained in Appendix 
A, "Uniform rules concerning the Contract for International Carriage of Passengers and 
Luggage  by  Rail  (CIV)"  to  the  Convention  concerning  International  Carriage  by  Rail 
(COTIF)  of  9  May  1980,  as  modified  by  the  Protocol  for  the  modification  of  the 
Convention  concerning  International  Carriage  by  Rail  of  3  June  1999  (1999  Protocol). 
COTIF applies in Europe, the Maghreb and the Middle East.  

A  significant  part  of  these  CIV  Uniform  Rules  is  reproduced  in  Annex  I  to  the 
Regulation.  As  a  consequence,  the  Regulation  extends  the  scope  of  this  Convention, 
which makes reference only to international railway services, to domestic rail passengers' 
transport  services.  Basically,  the  general  rules  and  passengers'  rights  and  obligation 
which are contained in the CIV Uniform Rules (CIV UR) of the COTIF Convention and 
which form the object of such extension relate to the transport contract, conditions and 
liability  for  the  transport  of  luggage  and  vehicles,  liability  in  case  of  accidents, 
cancellations,  delays  and  missed  connections  and  relations  between  carriers.  Annex  I 
applies subject to the rules in main provisions of the Regulation.  

The Regulation applies to all rail journeys and services throughout the EU provided by 
railway undertakings licensed under Directive 95/18/EC5 (i.e. it does not apply to "light 
rail" such as trams or metros). Also journeys covered under the new directive on package 
travel  and  linked  travel  arrangements6  are  covered.  However,  the  Regulation  allows 
Member States to grant a number of exemptions from the application of most provisions 
of the Regulation to certain services7. Exemptions include temporary exemptions for long 
distance  domestic  services  (for  a  period  of  up  to  15  years,  i.e.  until  2024),  unlimited 
exemptions for urban, suburban and regional services as well as exemptions for services 
of which a significant part, including at least one scheduled stop, is operated outside the 
EU. Member States have taken broad advantage of this possibility to grant exemptions, 
and  currently  only  five  apply  the  Regulation  in  full8.  All  other  Member  States  have 
granted  exemptions  to  a  different  extent  to  their  domestic  services  which  leads  to  a 
patchwork of application across the EU.  

The Court  of Justice of the European Union has so far been called  upon three times  to 
interpret  the  Regulation9.  The  ruling  in  Case  C-509/11  of  2013,  has  created  a  certain 
confusion among stakeholders since, as a consequence, railway undertakings have to pay 
compensation to passengers also in the event of "force majeure", i.e. where they were not 
responsible for delays and could neither foresee nor prevent them. Before the ruling, all 
stakeholders and notably railway undertakings,  Member States and the Commission had 
understood  the  Regulation  as  containing  a  "force  majeure"  clause,  exempting  railway 
undertakings from having to pay compensation when a delay of more than one hour was 

5   OJ  L143,  27.6.1995,  p.  70,  as  replaced    by  Directive  2012/34/EC  establishing  a  single  European  railway  area 
L343,  14.12.2012,  p.32,  as  amended  by  Directive  2016/2370  as regards  the  opening  of the  market  for  domestic 
passenger transport services by rail and the governance of the railway infrastructure, OJ L352 p. 1, 23.12.2016 

6   L326, 11.12.2015, p.1 
7   Article 2 (4), (5) and (6) 
8   Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Netherlands and Slovenia 
9   Cases C-509/11 (ÖBB), C-136/11 (Westbahn) and  C-261/15 (NMBS - SNCB) 

6 

 
 
                                                 
caused by a "force majeure" event and could not have been foreseen or prevented. The 
reference  in  Article  15  of  the  Regulation  to  the  liability  chapter  in  the  CIV  Uniform 
Rules in Annex I to the Regulation was thus understood to "import" the "force majeure" 
clause  contained  in  Article  32  of  the  CIV  into  the  Regulation,  so  that  railway 
undertakings'  liability  to  pay  compensation  would  equally  be  covered  by  that  clause. 
Recital  14  of  the  Regulation  explicitly  mentions  that  compensation  for  delays  (Article 
17)  "is  linked  to  the  liability  of  a  railway  undertaking"  on  the  basis  of  the  CIV.  This 
entails  that  imposing  on  railway  undertakings  the  obligation  to  pay  compensation  (in 
addition to rerouting or reimbursement and assistance) would only apply in the event that 
the delay or cancellation cannot be attributed to those "circumstances not connected with 
the operation of the railway" mentioned in Article 32 of Annex I. 

The Court came to the conclusion, that the provisions mentioned by Article 32 of Annex 
I are not of the same nature as those mentioned in Article 17 of the Regulation and that 
"nothing  in  Regulation  No  1371/2007  provides  that  railway  undertakings  are  exempt 
from  the  obligation  to  pay  compensation  laid  down  in  Article  17(1)  of  that  regulation 
where  the  delay  is  attributable  to  force  majeure".  Indeed  Article  32  refers  to  "loss  or 
damage"  due  to  cancellation  or  delay.  This  notion  differs  from  the  "compensation"  for 
delay offered by the Regulation in chapter IV, which the Court qualified as a "fixed rate 
standard  form  of  compensation"  for  a  contract  not  carried  out  as  scheduled.  The  Court 
considered  therefore  that  the  rights  to  compensation  under  the  regulation  complement 
and go beyond those in the CIV and were thus deliberately not meant to be covered by 
the exemption in Article 32. 

This distinguishes rail transport from air and waterborne transport, where carriers can be 
exempted  from  paying  compensation  under  certain  circumstances.  In  bus  and  coach 
transport, there is no obligation for operators to pay compensation in the event of delays 
at  arrival,  and  carriers  can  even  invoke  a  "force  majeure"  clause  to  be  exempt  from 
providing assistance (i.e. no accommodation has to be provided). It should be noted that 
there is currently no uniform harmonised definition of "force majeure" in the EU, and a 
variety of definitions exist across the EU (in both EU and national law). For the purpose 
of  this  impact  assessment,  we  will  therefore  look  at  two  different  definitions  of  the 
concept of "force majeure" and what it encompasses. A detailed description of the issue 
and the impact of different definitions is  presented further in the report (see  section on 
the problem definition, definition of options and analysis of effects below).   

Apart  from  the  provisions  of  the  Regulation,  the  UN  Convention  on  the  Rights  of 
Persons  with  Disabilities10  (UNCRPD)  calls  inter  alia  for  the  accessibility  of  transport 
services  for  persons  with  disabilities.  Accessibility  is  at  the  heart  of  the  UNCRPD  to 
which the EU and the Member States11 are parties. It requires them to take the necessary 
measures, including adopting legislation, to ensure accessibility and personal mobility. In 
line  with  Article  9  of  the  UNCRPD,  accessibility  in  the context  of  transport  means the 
prevention  or  removal  of  barriers  so  that  persons  with  disabilities  or  reduced  mobility 
may  use  the  service  and  all  related  facilities,  including  information,  on  an  equal  basis 
with other useres, i.e. independently and without having to rely on other persons. Apart 
from some accessible information, the Regulation does not contain detailed provisions on 

10   https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html 
11   All Member States have signed the Convention and 27 have ratified it. Ireland is preparing for ratification.  

7 

 
 
                                                 
accessibility  but  refers  to  the  technical  specifications  for  interoperability  relating  to 
accessibility  of  the  Union's  rail  system  for  persons  with  disabilities  and  persons  with 
reduced mobility (PRM TSI)12. The PRM TSI will ensure progressive accessibility of rail 
transport  infrastructure  and  vehicles.  The  Commission  has  also  recently  proposed  the 
European Accessibility Act13 (EAA) which contains accessibility provisions for transport 
services14. The EAA will complement and add to the provisions of the PRM TSI, which 
itself  is  currently  being  revised.  The  EAA  proposal  is  currently  being  discussed  in  the 
Council and the European Parliament. Its impact on rail transport services will depend on 
the outcome of these discussions.   
In August 2013, the European Commission adopted a Report15 on the application of the 
Regulation  which  included  the  findings  of  an  ex-post  evaluation16  study.  In  2015,  the 
Commission  adopted  a  Report  on  exemptions17  which  identified  the  extensive  use  of 
exemptions as a major hindrance to the uniform application of the Regulation. To address 
the  shortcomings  identified,  the  European  Commission  launched  an  impact  assessment 
process in February 201618 the results of which are presented in this report.  

The application of the Regulation must be seen in the context of the overall evolution and 
functioning of the rail passenger market and in view of the policy objective set out in the 
White Paper of 201119 to achieve a greater modal share for rail. This objective is recalled 
in the recently adopted 4th railway package20 which mentions the Regulation notably in 
connection with through ticketing and contingency planning.  In 2010, rail accounted for 
only  7%  of  inland  passenger  mobility  in  the  EU.  According  to  the  2016  Consumer 
Markets  Scoreboard,  consumers  rated  rail  services  poorly21  (even  though  the  situation 
has  been  improving),  and  there  is  a  wide  divergence  in  how  the  market  performs  in 
different countries.  

As regards developments on passenger rights in other transport modes, a proposal for a 
revision  of  the  Regulation  on  air  passenger  rights  has  been  been  tabled  by  the 
Commission  in  2013.  Negotiations  in  the  Council  are  currently  halted  because  of  the 
Gibraltar  issue  between  Spain  and  the  UK.  Further  to  the  numerous  rulings  of  the  EU 
Court  of  Justice  on  air  passenger  rights,  the  Commission  proposal  aims  at  ensuring  a 

12   Regulation (EU) No 1300/2014 of 18 November 2014 on the technical specifications for interoperability relating 
to accessibility of the Union's rail system for persons with disabilities and persons with reduced mobility;  OJ L 
356, 12.12.2014, p. 110 
13   COM/2015/0615 final 
14   e.g. for websites, ticketing machines and check-in machines, information, mobile-device based services 
15   Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the Application of Regulation (EC) 
No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on Rail Passengers' Rights and 
Obligations, COM/2013/0587 final 

16   Report  of  the  study  "Evaluation  of  Regulation  1371/2007"  by  Steer  Davies  Gleave  on  the  application  and 
the  Regulation  on  rail  passengers'  rights  and  obligations; 

enforcement 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/passengers/studies/doc/2012-07-evaluation-regulation-1371-2007.pdf 

the  Member  States  of 

in 

17   COM(2015)117 
18   Please refer to Annex 1 for further information 
19  COM(2011) 144 of 28/03/2011 
20   Directive (EU) 2016/2370, OJ L 352, 23.12.2016, p. 1   
21  http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/consumer_evidence/consumer_scoreboards/12_edition/index_en.htm  With 

a 
Market  Performance  Indicator  of  76.2  (EU28  average,  up  5.1  from  two  years  earlier),  the  train  services  market 
ranks  24th  among  the  29  services  markets  surveyed.  There  are  large  differences  in  performance  scores  across 
countries, ranging from 89.6 in Lithuania to 62.6 in Bulgaria. 

8 

 
 
                                                 
fairer  balance  of  interests  between  passenger  rights  and  the  economic  burden  on  air 
carriers of these rights.  

The  international  rail  market  constitutes  merely  6%  of  all  rail  traffic  in  the  EU.  The 
domestic  long-distance  rail  segment  represents  48%  of  all  rail  traffic  in  the  EU  while 
regional traffic represents 27% and suburban traffic 19%. While there is a certain degree 
of competition between rail and other transport modes on certain specific routes and over 
certain  distances,  notably  air  transport  and  bus  and  coach  transport,  the  data  available 
does  not  allow  the  conclusion  that  the  issue  of  competition  of  rail  with  other  modes  is 
significant at a global level.22  

Key problems at stake and their causes 

The  ex-post  evaluation  and  the  Commission's  own  reports  have  shown  that  the 
Regulation  has  had  an  overall  positive  effect  on  increasing  the  protection  of  rail 
passengers.  Railway  undertakings  have  in  general  applied  the  Regulation  relatively 
effectively.  There  was  no  systematic  non-compliance  or  major  ambiguities  with  any 
provision  of  the  Regulation  making  it  impossible  for  Member  States  or  operators  to 
comply.  

However, the evaluation identified two major problem areas related to the application of 
the  current  Regulation,  which  affect  the  main  stakeholders  groups  and  which  are 
analysed  in  this  impact  assessment.    One  problem  area  relates  to  passengers  (including 
PRMs) and their rights, the other to the burden on railway undertakings:  

1.  Firstly,  passengers  cannot  always  fully  enjoy  their  rights  under  the  Regulation 
when  using  rail  services.  Most  of  the  issues  described  under  this  problem  area 
apply  to  all  passengers.  However,  a  number  of  issues  concern  mainly  PRM 
passengers. Where relevant the report will address these elements separately.  

2.  The second major problem area concerns the burden on railway undertakings due 

to the inconsistent application of the Regulation. .  

These  two  areas  both  relate  to  the  current  application  of  the  Regulation  and  will 
constitute the first main part of this impact assessment. 

Another  important  element  which  will  be  treated  separately  in  this  impact  assessment 
report  is  linked  to  the  fact  that  rail  operators  cannot  be  exempted  from  having  to  pay 
compensation  even  where  delays  were  caused  by  "force  majeure"  and  could  not  be 
foreseen or prevented. This problem could in principle be treated together with the issues 
concerning  the  burden  on  railway  undertakings.  However,  the  insufficient  quantitative 
evidence as to the economic scale of this problem led us to separate this issue from the 
other  issues  in  this  impact  assessment.  Because  of  the  high  interest  of  the  “force 
majeure”  issue  for  Member  States  and  stakeholders,  the  issue  will  be  analysed 
nevertheless,  although  separately.  Therefore,  the  report  will  be  based  on  the  following 
structure: 

i) Part I – problems related to the current application of the Regulation and  

ii) Part II – problems related to the issue of "force majeure"  

22   See overview in Annex 5, Document A1 

9 

 
 
 
                                                 
(See problem diagram on Figure 1).  

Part  I  –  problems  linked  to  the  current  application  of  the  rail  passenger  rights 
legislation 

The analysis performed by the Commission in the preparation of this impact assessment 
identified a number of separate and independent issues. Moreover, a number of problem-
drivers  identified  only  have  limited  effects.  Therefore,  this  impact  assessment  report 
applies a hierarchy to the problems (i.e. major and secondary problems) which is justified 
by  their  greater  or  lesser  impact  on  stakeholders.  The  major  problems  are  therefore 
related to:  

Issues linked to the scope of the rail passenger rights legislation (Exemptions); 

 
  PRM rights; 
 
  Compensation and assistance to passengers in case of missed connections, delays 

Information provisions; 

or cancellations (notably the issue of through ticketing); 

  Complaint handling and enforcement.  

All of these problems mainly affect the rights of passengers using rail services.  

There are a number of "secondary" issues with the Regulation, which, although they have 
a certain impact on stakeholders, are not directly linked to the abovementioned problems. 
They can be divided according to the main stakeholders affected.  

As regards passengers they relate mainly to:  

  Discrimination on the basis of nationality, residence or currency;  
  Certain  unclear  definitions  (e.g.  missed  connection,  comparable  transport 

conditions);  

  Potential inconsistencies of the Regulation and the CIV UR reproduced in Annex 

I to the Regulation. 

Secondary issues relating to the economic and administrative burden  on rail companies 
concern: 

  Railway undertakings' sole responsibilities in case of major disruptions;  
  Long delay or cancellation caused by a third party;  
  The  fact  that  railway  undertakings  currently  have  to  keep  incident  data  for  an 

unlimited period of time.  

Part  II  –  The  problems  linked  to  the  issue  of  "force  majeure"  are  dealt  with  as  a 
separate topic.  

Figure 1: Problem definition diagram 

10 

 
 
Source: compilation by DG MOVE 

1.2  Description of the main problems linked to the current application of the rail 

passenger rights legislation (Part I) 

1.2.1  Major issues with the regulation 

(Protection of all passengers (including PRMs) – see Figure I) 

1.2.1.1  Problems  linked  to  the  scope  of  the  rail  passenger  rights  legislation 

(Exemptions) 

The Regulation23 allows Member States to exempt certain domestic rail services from the 
full  application  of  its  requirements.  This  possibility  was  granted,  on  the  one  hand,  to 
allow  Member  States  experiencing  difficulties  to  apply  the  Regulation  in  full  from  the 
entry into force to adapt their domestic services progressively and, on the other hand, to 
take  account  of  the  specific  character  of  urban,  suburban  and  regional  passenger 
services24. Only certain articles such as the availability of tickets, the liability of railway 
undertaking in respect of passengers and their luggage, the provisions on insurance, the 
responsibilities  of  railway  undertakings  and  station  managers  to  grant  PRMs  access  to 
rail transport services and the information about the accessibility of the service to PRMs 

23   Article 2 of the Regulation 
24   See also recitals 25 and 26 

11 

Part I of the problem definitionPart II of the problem definitionPassengersmay not fully exercise their rights while using rail servicesBurden on railway undertakingsAll passengers Problemslinked to the protection of PRMs1. Applicability of PRM rights to all services2. Accessible information for PRMs3.Staff training4. Provisions on complaint handling for PRMsMainaffected stakeholdersRoot causes (by main stakeholders)PRMsProblemsand problem driversRU burden in case of 3rd party responsibilityRU complaint handlingIMs, SMs,RUsRUsProblems linked to to the issue of "force majeure"Problems linked to the scope of the rail passenger rights legislation (Exemptions)All passengers Information for passengers about their rightsDiscrimination (nationality, residence,currency)DefinitionsEnforcement: complaint handling & cooperationCIVCompensation & assistance in case of missed connections, delays or cancellations (through tickets)Contingency planningBurden on railway undertakings 
 
  
 
 
                                                 
and the personal security of passengers25 cannot be exempted and apply to all services26. 
However, Member States may exempt from all or part of the other provisions: 

 

long-distance  national  services  for  a  limited  period  of  time  (five  years, 
renewable twice, i.e. for a maximum of 15 years, i.e. until 2024)27;  

  urban, suburban and regional services for an unlimited period of time28; 
  particular  services  or  journeys  where  a  significant  part  of  the  service  or 
journey  is  carried  out  outside  the  Union  for  a  maximum  period  of  five  years 
which can be renewed29. The Regulation does not specify how often this may be 
done.  

Despite  the  initial  purpose  of  exemptions  to  allow  a  progressive  "phasing-in",  Member 
States have made extensive use of exemptions30 with the negative consequence that rail 
passengers  travelling  on  domestic  services  cannot  fully  benefit  from  most  of  the 
provisions under the Regulation and may be insufficiently protected depending on where 
they  travel.  In  theory  this  problem  could  potentially  be  mitigated  if  the  Member  States 
which  grant  exemptions  had  equivalent  or  more  generous  national  provisions  on 
compensation or assistance in place. However, as is shown in table A3 of Annex 5, only 
in  the  UK  do  exemptions  for  the  compensation31  not  have  a  significant  impact  on 
passengers'  rights,  as  franchise  contractual  commitments  provide  for  more  generous 
compensation than that of the Regulation. Therefore, a significant number of passengers' 
journeys (in terms of passenger km or pkm) are exempted, and thus an important number 
of passengers do not benefit from the rights under the Regulation.   
For instance, for domestic long distance services, 11 Member States32 apply exemptions 
for  compensation,  and  the  same  11  Member  States  apply  exemptions  related  to  one  or 
more  articles  related  to  assistance33.  For  urban,  suburban  and  regional  services,  15 
Member States34 apply exemptions related to compensation, 1235 apply exemptions to the 
right to information36  and 1637 to the right to meals and refreshments in the event of long 
delay38. For services with third countries, 8 Member States39 apply exemptions related 
to  compensation,  740apply  exemptions  to  the  right  to  information  and  841  to  meals  and 

25   Articles 9, 11, 12, 19, 20(1) and 26  
26   According to Article 2 of the Regulation 
27   According to Article 2(4) of the Regulation 
28   According to Article 2(5) of the Regulation 
29   According to Article 2(6) of the Regulation 
30   See also Table A12 in Annex 5 on exemptions granted by Member States 
31   Article 17 of the Regulation 
32   BG, HR, CZ, EE, EL, HU, LV, PT, RO, SK, UK 
33   Article 18 
34   AT, BG, HR, EE, EL, FI, FR, HU, LU, LV, PL, PT, RO, SE, SK, UK  
35   BG, FR, HU, HR, EL, HU, LU, LV, PL SE, SK, UK 
36   Article 18(1) 
37   BG, HR, DE, EE, EL, FI, FR, HU, LU, LV, PL, PT, RO, SE, SK, UK  
38   Article 18(2)(a)  
39   BG, HR, EE, EL, FI, LV, LT, RO 
40   BG, HR, FI, EL, LV, LT, RO 
41   BG, HR, FI, EL, HU, LV, LT, RO 

12 

 
 
                                                 
refreshments. As a result 21,4% of pkm do not benefit from the provision related to the 
right  to  compensation,  17,1%  of  pkm  do  not  benefit  from  the  requirement  to  inform 
passengers in case of disruption and 44,6 % of pkm do not benefit from the right to meals 
and  refreshments.  In  all  these  cases  Member  States  do  not  have  equivalent  or  more 
generous national provisions in place.   

The ex-post evaluation carried out by the external consultant found out that the extensive 
use  of  exemptions  hindered  the  overall  achievement  of  the  main  objective  of  the 
Regulation,  i.e.  the  protection  of  rail  passengers.  Moreover,  the  Commission's 
Application Report (2013) notes that “[t]he application of different regimes for domestic 
and intra-EU international services is not consistent with the wider policy objective of a 
single European Railway Area.”  

Indeed,  extensive  exemptions  in  regions  where  urban,  suburban  or  regional  services 
operate  across  borders  also  lead  to  legal  uncertainty  and  lack  of  transparency  for 
commuters. This is mainly the case in the border regions of Germany, France, Belgium 
and Luxemburg. If a train is delayed by more than 60 minutes, passengers always have to 
check national rules to see whether or not they are entitled to compensation or assistance, 
depending  on  the  country  in  which  they  are  travelling.  This  leads,  combined  with 
imperfect  knowledge  of  their  rights  by  passengers  and  divergences  in  the  provision  of 
information, to a low probability that passengers assert their rights to compensation.  

While exemptions for urban, suburban and regional services can be granted, in principle, 
for  an  unlimited  period  of  time,  renewals  for  exemptions  for  long  distance  domestic 
services and services with third countries have to be made every 5 years. As regards long 
distance domestic services, renewals are limited to two (15 years in total from the entry 
into force of the Regulation). For services with third countries, the Regulation does not 
specify the number of renewals. Consultations with Member States in the course of this 
impact  assessment  reveal  that  there  are  no  intentions  to  reduce  the  current  exemption 
regimes.  This  conflicts  with  the  objective  of  the  Regulation  to  provide  a  high  level  of 
passenger protection.  
Furthermore as emphasised in the EC Interpretative Guidelines42: “temporary exemptions 
for  long-distance  services  may  be  introduced  with  a  view  to  allowing  a  period  of 
‘phasing-in’,  in  order  to  help  railway  undertakings  that  may  have  difficulties  in 
implementing  all  of  the  provisions  by  the  date  of  the  Regulation’s  entry  into  force.”  In 
connection  with  Recital  25  of  the  Regulation  this  indicates  that  exemptions  for  long 
distance  services  are  not  meant  to  be  permanent  and  should  only  be  used  to  overcome 
temporary  difficulties  to  apply  the  Regulation  in  full.  The  same  applies  to  services  or 
journeys of which a significant part is carried out outside the EU. As Article 26 indicates 
a  clear  maximum  period  of  five  years  (albeit  renewable)  granting  exemptions  should 
allow  Member  States  to  adapt  their  relations  with  third  countries  (e.g.  to  adjust  their 
bilateral agreements) with the aim to apply the Regulation in full on the part carried out 
on  the  EU  territory.  The  Regulation  does  not  mention  cross-border  intra-  EU  services 
explicitly, but it openly refers to the domestic nature of services which can be exempted 
(apart from those with third countries, but there the Regulation would only apply on the 
services  carried  out  on  the  EU  territory).  Conversely,  where  Member  States  exempt 

42  

Interpretative Guidelines on Regulation (EC) N° 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council on rail 
passengers' rights and obligations; OJ C 220, 4.7.2015, p. 1 

13 

 
 
                                                 
cross-border  EU  services  which  are  suburban  or  regional  services  the  rights  of 
commuters  in  cross-border  regions  are  significantly  reduced,  as  is  their  legal  certainty 
about which rights apply.  

1.2.1.2  Problems linked to the protection of passengers with disabilities or reduced 

mobility  

Persons  with  disabilities  or  reduced  mobility  (PRM)  have  the  same  rights  to  use  rail 
transport  as  other  passengers.  The  Regulation  provides  for  non-discriminatory  access 
conditions  for  PRM  passengers  and  imposes  obligations  on  railway  undertakings  and 
station  managers  to  enable  PRM  passengers  to  use  rail  services.  However,  various 
sources, including passenger complaints (see further sub-sections), show that PRMs may 
not  always  fully  exercise  their  rights  while  using  rail  services.  The  main  problematic 
areas are described below. 

It is important to note though that several assumptions had to be made to assess the scale 
of these problems. Currently, there is no data available at European level on the amount 
of  rail  travel  that  PRMs  undertake.  However,  according  to  the  World  Report  on 
Disability43 (2012), approximately 16.6% (1 in 6) of the EU population has some form of 
disability. Also, the impact assessment on PRM-TSI44 estimates PRMs as 15.7% of the 
working  age  population.  It  results  that  if  the  overall  travelling  patterns  of  PRMs  are 
similar  to  those  of  all  citizens,  around  67  billion  pkm  on  a  yearly  basis  could  be 
associated to PRMs. 

A) Applicability of PRM rights to all services 

In addition to the general set of exemptions discussed above concerning all passengers, 
the Regulation allows Member States to exempt domestic services from the application 
of  a  number  of  provisions  intended  to  PRMs  to  enable  them  to  use  transport  as  other 
passengers. This is possible simply because apart from the "right to transport" and certain 
information requirements, the articles containing these provisions are not among the list 
of  mandatory  provisions45.  The  rights  enshrined  in  these  articles  concern  notably  the 
assistance  in  stations  and  on-board  trains  and  the  compensation  for  lost  or  damaged 
mobility equipment. The duration of these exemptions is linked to the general duration of 
exemptions  granted  by  Member  States  and  depends  on  the  nature  of  the  service  (long 
distance; urban, suburban or regional; or service with a third country).  

In  some  cases,  exemptions  do  not  impact  the  rights  of  PRMs  as,  prima  facie,  some 
national legislation appears to meet the standards of the Regulation. Table A3 in Annex 5 
shows the proportion of PRM pkm that are exempted for each of the requirements46, as 
well as the proportion of services that are exempted and for which there are no equivalent 
domestic provisions. At present, services carrying between 12.8% and 30.1% of EU pkm 
are subject to exemptions, and do not meet the requirements related to PRM accessibility, 

43   World Health Organisation (WHO), (2012) World Report on Disability 
44  
Impact assessment report – PRM TSI: revision and scope extension  
45   As per Article 2(3) 
46   As defined in Chapter V of the Regulation 

14 

 
 
 
                                                 
assistance  and compensation for  mobility equipment47. By allowing Member States to 
exempt services from the application of these articles, the Regulation further reduces the 
rights of PRMs as well as their opportunities to use rail services. This is contrary to the 
objectives of the UNCRPD48 as well as to the European Disability Strategy 2010-202049. 

B) Accessible information for PRMs (travel information and information about their 
rights as passengers) 

As  regards  travel  information,  railway  undertakings  and/or  ticket  vendors  shall  inform 
passengers  pre-journey  at  least  about  general  contract  conditions,  time  schedules  and 
conditions for the fastest trip and lowest fares, accessibility, access conditions and PRM 
facilities  on  board,  conditions  for  bicycles,  availability  of  seats,  any  activities  likely  to 
disrupt or delay services, on-board services, procedures for reclaiming lost luggage and 
for  submitting  complaints50.  During  the  journey  information  must  be  provided  at  least 
about on-board services, next stations, delays, main connecting services and security and 
safety issues51. When providing this information, the Regulation requires that particular 
attention  be  paid  "to  the  needs  of  people  with  auditory  and/or  visual  impairments"52. 
While  this  provision  ensures  that  journey  information  is  accessible  to  at  least  a  certain 
proportion of PRMs, other categories of persons with disabilities are not covered (such as 
persons  with  cognitive  impairments  or  dementia),  and  these  persons  may  not  be 
adequately informed, in particular during their journey, at connection points or when the 
trip is not carried out as planned.  

Moreover,  no  specific  requirements  exist  regarding  the  accessibility  to  PRMs  of  the 
information to passengers about their rights and obligations under the Regulation (i.e. the 
rights to transport, assistance, compensation, complaint handling etc.)53. As a result, this 
information is often not accessible to persons with different kinds of disabilities who may 
thus not be adequately informed about their rights as passengers when travelling by rail. 
In  the  course  of  the  consultations  made  for  this  Impact  Assessment,  the  European 
Disability Forum (EDF) complained for instance about the lack of accessible information 
about passenger rights.  

While  general  issues  regarding  passenger  awareness  (which  also  affect  PRMs)  will  be 
discussed below in section 1.2.1.3., with regard to PRMs, there is an additional indicator 
for awareness, which is the number of requests for assistance54 which PRMs may make 
to  railway  undertakings,  station  managers,  ticket  vendors  or  tour  operators  at  least  48 
hours before the journey55. Based on the assumption that the travelling patterns of PRMs 

47    Articles 20(2), 21(2), 22, 23, 24(a), 24(b), 24(c), 24(d), 24(e) and 25 
48   https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html 
49   COM(2010) 636 final  
50   Annex II, Part I 
51   Annex II, Part II 
52   Article 8 (3) 
53    Article 29 
54   We  note  that,  when  using  this  proxy  in  the  analysis,  it  is  necessary  to  assume  that  the  travel  patterns  of  PRM 
passengers are the same as for other passengers. We will keep a note of this assumption wherever it is used in the 
generation of results. 

55    Article 24 

15 

 
 
 
                                                 
are similar to those of all citizens, it was possible to calculate this figure for a number of 
Member  States.  The  proportion  of  PRMs  making  rail  journeys  range  from  0.02%  in 
Slovakia  to  0.67%  in  Spain.  The  proportions  of  journeys  that  include  requests  for 
assistance  are  low  (in  all  cases  much  less  than  1%).  These  low  figures  reflect  the 
information  provided  by  a  Eurobarometer  survey  on  passenger  rights  of  201456. 
According  to  the  survey  results,  only  3%  of  citizens  in  the  EU  have  ever  asked  for 
assistance  during  a  journey  by  train  (national  or  international).  Although  these  figures 
should be treated with  care, as a PRMs  decision to  request assistance might depend  on 
other factors, it can still provide an indication on the level of passengers' awareness (in 
particular in combination with information on overall levels of information provided in 
section  1.2.1.3).  This  low  awareness  could  also  be  due  to  the  fact  that  the  information 
about the right to assistance is not available in accessible formats. 

C) Staff training 
The Regulation is not fully aligned with the UNCRPD57 which requires States Parties to 
take  effective  measures  to  ensure  personal  mobility  with  the  greatest  possible 
independence for persons with disabilities, including by facilitating the personal mobility 
of persons with disabilities.  

The Regulation requires railway undertakings and station managers to provide assistance 
to PRMs, subject to pre-notification of 48 hours, at railway stations and on board trains. 
If  no  notification  is  made,  railway  undertakings  and  station  managers  have  to  "make 
reasonable efforts" to provide assistance so that the passenger can take the train.  

EDF pointed out that assistance to PRM passengers was not always available in spite of 
pre-notifications  and  that  it  was  not  always  appropriate  to  the  needs  of  the  person. 
Moreover,  according  to  EDF,  assistance  is  not  always  available  at  all  times  that  trains 
run, as opposed to within a restricted time frame. While there is no specific reference in 
the  Regulation  to  such  a  requirement,  Article  24(a)  states  that  “assistance  shall  be 
provided on condition that [notification is given] at least 48 hours before the assistance is 
needed".  Even  if  EDF  only  provided  anecdotal  evidence,  such  situations  can  and  will 
occur more often.  

This means that rail travel for PRMs is not always as easy and smooth as it should be. In 
order  to  improve  the  provision  of  assistance  and  thus  the  travel  experience  of  PRM 
passengers,  the  Interpretative  Guidelines  recommend  that  rail  staff  receive  disability 
awareness  training  at  regular  intervals  to  provide  effective  and  adequate  assistance  to 
PRMs.  However,  there  is  no  obligation.  As  a  consequence,  where  rail  staff  is  not 
thoroughly trained, the assistance provided to PRMs might be inadequate or completely 
lacking, thus inhibiting a smooth travel experience. Trained staff at stations and on board, 
as required under passenger rights legislation for all other modes of transport, would be 
in  a  good  position  to  provide  proper  assistance.  This  would  help  ensure  that  PRM 
passengers have the same opportunities to use rail services as other passengers.   

56   Special Eurobarometer 420 (November 2014), http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_420_en.pdf 
57   Articles 9 and 20 of the UNCRPD refer to transport  

16 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
D) Provisions on complaint handling for PRMs 

The  evaluation  report  highlighted  that  missing  rules  for  complaint  handling  by  actors 
other than railway undertakings (e.g. station managers) may impede passengers' access to 
redress.  The  Regulation58  requires  station  managers  to  provide  assistance  to  PRMs  on 
departure from, transit through or arrival at, a staffed railway station so that the person 
can  board  the  departing  service,  or  disembark  from  the  arriving  service.  Despite  this 
requirement,  station  managers  have  no  obligations  (similar  to  requirements  on  railway 
undertakings59), to handle complaints or to publish service quality reports. This was not a 
problem when most rail stations were owned by the railway undertakings, who handled 
the complaints about infringement of the Regulation by the stations.  

However, nowadays, in a lot of Member States railway undertakings are separated from 
the station manager60. As pointed out inter alia by EDF, there is currently no process for 
PRMs to complain directly to the station manager (such as to airports in the air passenger 
rights  legislation61).  As  railway  undertakings  do  not  usually  handle  complaints  about 
problems at stations, PRM passengers currently have to address their complaints directly 
to  the  NEBs,  which  in  turn  have  to  contact  the  rail  stations.  Problems,  which  could  be 
solved  relatively  easily  directly  between  the  stations  and  the  passengers,  have  to  go 
through  an  additional  administrative  layer.  This  prolongs  the  solution  of  problems  and 
increases the work of national administrations.  

1.2.1.3  Information for passengers about their rights and passenger awareness 

Railway  undertakings,  station  managers  and tour  operators  must  inform  rail  passengers 
about  their  rights  as  passengers  under  the  Regulation  notably  when  the  journey  is  not 
carried  out  as  planned  (rights  to  information,  assistance,  compenstion  etc.)62.  Railway 
undertakings and ticket vendors must provide at least the minimum information specified 
in  Annex  II  to  the  Regulation63.  Pre-journey  information  relates  to  general  conditions, 
time  schedules,  PRM  accessibility,  conditions  for  bicycles,  complaint  procedures  etc. 
Information  during  the  journey  must  cover  at  least  on-board  services,  next  stations, 
delays,  main  connecting  services  and  security  and  safety  issues  (see  also  PRM  section 
1.2.1.2 on information above) .  

However,  the  level  of  passenger  awareness  and  information  provided  is  not  always 
sufficient, which was highlighted in a Special Eurobarometer survey on passenger rights 
of  201464.  This  Special  Eurobarometer  survey  was  conducted  in  a  view  to  measure 
awareness  of  passenger  rights  in  28  Member  States,  distinguishing  between  different 
transport modes (air, rail, waterborne and long-distance coach). It was conducted at the 

58   Article 22 
59   As defined in Article 27 
60   ES, HR, IT, LV, LU, AT, PL, PT, SK, SE, UK, see Fifth report on monitoring developments of the rail market, 

SWD(2016) 427 final,  8.12.2016 

61   Regulation (EC) 1107/2006 on the rights of disabled persons and persons with disabilities when travelling by air, 

OJ L204, p. 1, 26.7.2006 
62   Article 29 to the Regulation 
63   Article 8 to the Regulation 
64   Special Eurobarometer 420 (November 2014), http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_420_en.pdf   

17 

 
 
 
                                                 
EU level. Some 28050 respondents from different social and demographic groups were 
interviewed face-to-face at home in their mother tongue. The methodology used is that of 
the Eurobarometer surveys carried out by the Directorate - General for Communication.  

According  to  this  survey,  37%  of  all  citizens  do  not  believe  that  railway  undertakings 
inform passengers well about their rights on international (cross-border) lines. The level 
of dissatisfaction is even higher (51%), when only passengers who used international rail 
transport are interviewed. It is also important to note that only 29% of all citizens agreed 
that railway undertakings inform them adequately about their rights. The fact that 11 % 
replied  they  did  not  know  and  37%  did  not  consider  this  question  relevant  could  also 
indicate low passenger awareness.  

Even though the replies in the open public consultation carried out in the course of the 
impact assessment represent a small sample size and cannot be taken as providing direct 
evidence,  they  support  the  findings  of  the  Eurobarometer  survey.  The  opinions  of 
passengers  and  passenger/consumer  associations  point  in  the  same  direction  with  79 
passengers  (61%)  and  13  passenger/consumer  associations  (87%)  disagreeing  (either 
slightly  or  strongly)  with  the  assertion  that  passengers  are  well  informed  about  their 
rights. On the other hand, all eleven railway undertakings and one infrastructure manager 
participating in the open public consultation responded uniformly by agreeing (slightly or 
strongly) that passengers are well informed of their rights.  

The  field  research  undertaken  in  the  course  of  the  impact  assessment  also  supports  the 
findings  that passenger awareness would be  insufficient.  According to  the case studies, 
the  NEBs  in  Belgium,  Finland,  France,  Latvia,  Lithuania  and  the  Netherlands  did  not 
believe  that  passengers  were  sufficiently  aware  of  their  rights  under  the  Regulation.  In 
contrast, the NEBs in Austria and Germany felt that passengers were well aware of their 
rights.  The  NEB  in  Germany  (Eisenbahn-Bundesamt  -  EBA),  which  noted  a  steady 
increase of complaints, claimed that rail passengers’ awareness of their rights according 
to  the  Regulation  was  high  and  growing  over  time,  thanks  to  several  information 
campaigns. However, according to the Special Eurobarometer survey on passenger rights 
of 2014, in Austria and Germany the proportion of citizens considering themselves as not 
well informed about their rights by railway undertakings is above the EU average (44% 
and  56%  respectively)65.  During  the  interviews  in  the  case  studies,  the  Austrian  NEB 
explained  this  dichotomy  by  the  assumption  that  due  to  their  high  level  of  awareness, 
passengers in Austria are more demanding on their rights vis-à-vis service providers. 

Further indirect insights on the awareness level of rail passengers can be drawn from the 
assessment  of  the  number  and  type  of  complaints  in  combination  with  the  information 
from  the  annual  activity  reports  of  the  EUROPE  DIRECT  Contact  Centre  (EDCC). 
EDCC  is  a  service  managed  by  the  DG  for  Communication.    It  informs  citizens  and 
businesses  on  EU  related  matters,  including  on  passenger  rights.  According  to  the 
cooperation  agreements  between  the  DG  for  Communication  and  the  DG  for  Mobility 
and Transport, EDCC serves as first point of call and information for general passenger 
enquiries. EDCC informs in particular on the relevant rights of passengers to assistance 
and  compensation  and  on  the  complaint  procedures  to  follow.  Therefore,  even  if  the 
assessment of the number and type of complaints to EDCC may not provide a full picture 

65   Special Eurobarometer 420 (November 2014), p. 27 

18 

 
 
                                                 
about rail passengers' awareness, it still provides some indications on its level, especially 
when compared to air transport users.  
According to the 2015 report66, from January to December, EDCC replied to 79 enquiries 
(or 0.18 per billion  pkm)  on rail passenger rights compared to  5,117 enquiries (or 8.46 
per billion pkm) on air passenger rights. This important difference is also reflected in the 
activity  reports  for  the  previous  years,  i.e.  149  (0.35  per  billion  pkm)  in  20146768 
compared to 6,588 (or 10.89 enquiries per billion pkm) and 151 (or 0.35 per billion pkm 
in  2013)  69  compared  to  6,682  (or  11.04  per  billion  pkm).  Indeed,  this  data  should  be 
treated  with  care,  as  the  low  level  of  complaints  could  also  indicate  better  application 
compared  to  air  passenger  rights.  In  combination  with  the  fact  that  according  to  the 
Special Eurobarometer survey on passenger rights only 37% of citizens disagree that air 
passengers were well-informed by the airline company (compared to 51% in relation to 
the  information  provided  by  the  railway  undertakings)  it  could,  however  also  indicate 
that rail passengers are less aware about their rights than air passengers.  

Moreover,  some  anecdotal  evidence  from  the  field  and  desk  research  for  a  number  of 
Member  States  could  also  provide  some  indications  about  the  passengers'  awareness 
level.  According  to  the  UK  NEB70,  70-80%  of  passengers  do  not  claim  compensation 
when they are entitled to it. The Belgian NEB received only 80 passenger complaints in 
2012  (both  for  international  and  national  services)71  which  is  a  low  figure  given  that 
around 40 000 international journeys per year are delayed by more than one hour. Indeed, 
these  figures  should  be  treated  with  care,  as  a  passenger  decision  to  file  a  complaint 
might  depend  on  a  number  of  other  factors  (e.g.  the  value  of  compensation  might  be 
judged low compared to the effort). However, the Polish NEB advised that the number of 
complaints  increased  by  42.7%  from  2013  to  2014  following  an  awareness  campaign 
relating  to  complaint  handling.  This  could  indicate  a  potential  correlation  between  the 
awareness  level  and  the  number  of  filed  complaints.  Finally,  in  Germany  9.9  %  of  all 
complaints to the NEB relate to the provision of information about cancellations, delays, 
replacement services and changes of platform, and in Romania 21% of the requests were 
related to information provision including requests for clarifications on passengers’ rights 
and the Regulation. This shows that passengers are clearly interested in receiving more 
information about their rights.  

1.2.1.4  Compensation  and  assistance  to  passengers  in  case  of  missed  connections, 

delays or cancellations  

A) Through tickets 

The  Regulation  provides  that  railway  undertakings  and  ticket  vendors  must  offer 
"through  tickets"  where  available72.  It  defines  a  through  ticket  as  "a  ticket  or  tickets 
representing  a  transport  contract  for  successive  railway  services  operated  by  one  or 

66   http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/communication/pdf/aar/europe-direct/europe-direct-2015-annual-report_en.pdf  
67   http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/communication/pdf/aar/europe-direct/europe-direct-2014-annual-report_en.pdf  
68   EU Transport in figures, Statistical Pocketbook 2016  
69   http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/communication/pdf/aar/europe-direct/europe-direct-2013-annual-report_en.pdf  
70   Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) 
71   Direction Entreprises publiques et Politique ferroviaires Annual Report 2012 para 3.2 
72   Article 9 of Regulation 1371/2007 

19 

 
 
                                                 
several  railway  undertakings73.  For  example,  this  could  mean  a  ticket  or  tickets  for  a 
journey  from  Brussels  to  Hamburg  involving  three  different  railway  undertakings 
(SNCB,  Thalys  and  DB)  with  three  stops  (Brussels-Liège,  Liège-Cologne,  Cologne-
Hanover, Hanover-Hamburg).  

However,  various  sources  (passenger  organisations  such  as  the  European  Passenger 
Federation (EPF),  citiziens writing to the Commission and to EDCC) complain that the 
availability of through tickets is currently limited. 

The field research carried out in the course of this impact assessment confirmed a limited 
availability  of  through  tickets.  This  is  because  railway  undertakings  do  not,  as  a  rule, 
establish commercial agreements between each other to offer through tickets as they shun 
the  responsibility  to  provide  assistance  and  compensation  in  the  event  of  a  delay  or 
missed  connection  during  a  combined  journey.  Moreover,  with  the  liberalisation  of  the 
rail market as a result of the 4th railway package, the number of operators will increase, 
and there is therefore a risk that less and less through tickets will be offered. 

For  example,  French  SNCF  claimed  that  through  tickets  between  operators  were  only 
available exceptionally, and only where a relevant agreement exists between the railway 
undertakings  concerned.  In  the  Netherlands,  through  tickets  for  domestic  travel  are  not 
offered as such, because passengers use a smart card (OV Chipkaart) to check in and out; 
for  international  journeys,  Dutch  Nederlandse  Spoorwegen  (NS)  offers  through  tickets 
for  some  destinations,  depending  on  the  agreements  between  NS  and  other  operators. 
Currently, no through tickets are available in Poland, but the Ministry for Infrastructure 
and Construction has set up a working group on this issue. In Romania, the state railway 
undertaking  (CFR  Călători)  provides  through  tickets  for  its  own  services,  while  for 
international services, it provides tickets only where agreements with other operators are 
in place. CFR Călători does not sell tickets for services operated by competitors.   

The Austrian NEB indicated that obligations under the Regulation had a negative impact 
on the availability of through tickets and that railway undertakings were reluctant to offer 
through  tickets  on  international  services.  In  the  same  vein,  Belgian  SNCB  expressed 
concerns  that  too  restrictive  requirements  in  connection  with  compensation  payments 
might  be  a  disincentive  for  operators  to  offer  through  tickets.  The  boot  is  on  the  other 
foot:  Selling  tickets  only  for  segments  allows  railway  undertakings  to  by-pass  the 
obligations related  to compensation for delays. This  shows that  certain costs of the rail 
market  liberalisation  are  shifted  to  the  consumers,  who  nowadays  enjoy  less  protection 
under combined journeys than before the liberalisation.  

As a result, compensation is calculated differently in the event of delays when a journey 
is composed of several legs. According to the desk and field research, the calculation of 
compensation  for  a  delay  in  some  Member  States,  like  Germany,  Italy  (since  March 
2015)  and  Lithuania,  is  based  on  the  whole  ticket  price  for  the  entire  journey  if  the 
journey  is  carried  out  by  a  single  operator  or  by  different  operators  in  a  single  public 
transport network association which provides rail services in a specific region (such as a 
"Verkehrsverbund"  in  Germany).  However  this  is  not  always  the  case;  for  example  in 

73   Article 3(10) of Regulation 1371/2007 

20 

 
 
                                                 
Italy before March 201574, a number of continuous rail services were not considered as 
through  tickets  by  railway  undertakings  (Trenitalia  and  RFI)  but  as  separate  transport 
contracts  –  e.g.  a  regional  rail  service  followed  by  a  medium  or  long-distance  national 
rail service. In that case, a delay of less than one hour on the first rail service which led to 
a missed connection for the second service would not entitle a passenger to assistance or 
compensation,  even  if  he/she  arrived  with  a  delay  of  more  than  one  hour  at  the  final 
destination, since the two rail services were governed under separate transport contracts.  

According to information  received, notably  from EPF  but  also from ticket vendors and 
travel agents, railway undertakings tend to regard separate tickets as separate contracts, 
even  if  they  are  bought  at  the  same  time  and  in  a  single  purchase  transaction  for  one 
journey. Consequently they deny compensation or assistance for the whole journey and 
grant it only for the separate segments. Rail companies justify this policy by referring to 
the  General  Conditions  of  Carriage  for  Rail  Passengers  (GCC-CIV/PRR)75  which 
stipulate that one ticket represents one transport contract and that several tickets represent 
several contracts unless it is specifically mentioned that they represent a single contract76. 
Although the GCC-CIV/PRR is only a recommendation document, railway undertakings 
widely use them as a reference document.  
In  the  4th  railway  package,  the  Commission  clarified  certain  aspects  related  to  through 
tickets  and  their  availability  and  declared  its  intention  to  monitor  rail  market 
developments in the Member States in this respect. It will decide, by 2022, on the need 
for  further  action.  However,  currently  the  enforcement  of  the  relevant  provision  in  the 
Regulation  is  ineffective.  The  effects  of  the  EC  Interpretative  Guidelines  (2015)  which 
recommend that "separate tickets sold under a single contract should be understood as a 
through  ticket”  cannot  yet  be  assessed  owing  to  the  short  time  since  their  introduction 
and, in any event, they are not binding on the railway undertakings. 

The replies to the open public consultation show the controversy of the subject and could 
reflect  the  different  interests  of  various  stakeholders  groups.  In  particular,  51%  of 
citizens (66) and 60% of passenger/consumer associations (9) responded that the concept 
of through tickets was unclear, (partly) missing or (partly) obsolete. Also, 50% of public 
authorities (8)77 consider that the concept is unclear or (partly) missing. On the other side 
only  27%  (3)  of  railway  undertakings  believe  that  the  concept  of  through  tickets  was 
unclear and 64% (7) that do not. 

74   Following  several  complaints  submitted  by  passengers  and  passengers’  associations,  in  2014  the  Italian 
competition  authority  (AGCM)  initiated  proceedings  against  Trenitalia  and  RFI  to  establish  the  existence  of 
infringements  with  respect  to  Trenitalia’s  complaint  handling  mechanism;  and  the  failure  to  classify  a  journey 
composed  of  several  legs  as  a  “through  ticket”  –  i.e.  a  single  contract  of  carriage  –  which  was  deemed  by  the 
AGCM  as  being  designed  to  limit  the  passengers’  rights  protection  by  limiting  passengers’  entitlement  to 
compensation for delays and missed connections. 

75   http://www.cit-rail.org/en/passenger-traffic/cit-documentation/  
76   Points 3.4 - 3.6 about the handling of reimbursements and compensations of GCC-CIV/PRR 
77    BE, EE, FI, SE, EL, CZ, two authorities from LV (NEB and MoT),  

21 

 
 
 
                                                 
1.2.1.5  Enforcement: NEB complaint handling and cooperation 

Member States are in charge of ensuring the correct application of the Regulation. They 
have  to  designate  national  enforcement  bodies  (NEBs)78.  However  the  tasks  and 
enforcement  policies  of  NEBs  vary  greatly  depending  on  the  country;  and  different 
interpretations of their role co-exist.  

The Regulation requires NEBs to cooperate, to exchange information on their work and 
decision-making  principles  to  coordinate  their  enforcement  activities  across  the  EU79. 
Despite Commission efforts to bring NEBs together in regular meetings80 and to reply to 
and share questions on interpretation, the cooperation level between NEBs is low and, if 
any,  restricted  to  a  few  cross-border  cases,  notably  when  passengers  complain  about 
incidents  during  cross-border  journeys  or  when  travelling  in  another  country  than  their 
residence.  The ex-post evaluation found that "of the 17 case study States, the NEBs of 7 
States  had  had  no  contact  with  other  NEBs,  and  for  a  further  6  NEBs  any  contact  has 
been limited"81.The Polish NEB considered that owing to the frequency of NEB meetings 
good  working  relationships  could  not  easily  be  established.  At  the  NEB  meeting  of  31 
March 2015, NEBs insisted that rules for the cooperation are unclear and the wording of 
the current Regulation did not allow to fully clarifying this in interpretative guidelines82. 

As a result, passengers who suffer a delay or cancellation during a cross-border journey 
may not be adequately protected. Despite the fact83 that passengers can complain to any 
NEB,  NEBs  may  avoid  to  assume  responsibility  to  handle  a  complaint  if  the  incident 
took  place  in  another  or  involves  more  than  one  Member  State.  Although  at  recent 
meetings  with  NEBs  there  was  no  evidence  that  such  a  situation  has  indeed  produced 
itself, such a scenario was not ruled out, notably at a NEB meeting of 2015 to discuss the 
Interpretative Guidelines. This may notably occur if the ticket is bought in one Member 
State,  the  journey  is  carried  out  by  a  railway  undertaking  licensed  in  another  Member 
State  and  the  incident  happened  in  a  third  one.  The  process  to  handle  complaints  and 
issues  of  competence,  i.e.  which  NEB  has  to  handle  a  complaint,  is  not  entirely  clear, 
although the Commission has tried to clarify this and to propose a procedure in its 2015 
Interpretative Guidelines.  In the NEB meeting of 6 March 2017 some NEBs mentioned 
again that the cooperation process was not sufficiently clear to them and that sharing and 
coordination of enforcement activities was not done sufficiently.  

While  international  journeys  represent  only  7  %  of  all  rail  journeys  in  the  EU,  the 
primary  purpose  of  cooperation  between  NEBs  should  be  to  ensure  that  cross-border 
cases are handled in a way allowing passengers' complaints to be adequately dealt with. 
In  addition,  cooperation  to  exchange  decision-making  principles  shall  improve 
consistency  of  application  across  Member  States  so  that  passengers  can  expect  similar 
levels of enforcement. 

78   Article 30 of the Regulation 
79   Article 31 of the Regulation 
80    Seven NEB meeting have been organised by the Commission between 2010 and 2017 
81   The 2012 Evaluation Study Report by Steer Davies Gleave found that "of the 17 case study States, the NEBs of 7 
States  had  had  no  contact  with  other  NEBs,  and  for  a  further  6  NEBs  any  contact  has  been  limited. 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/themes/passengers/studies/doc/2012-07-evaluation-
regulation-1371-2007.pdf    

82   Minutes of NEB meeting of 31.3.2015 
83    Article 30 of the Regulation 

22 

 
 
                                                 
Also  the  process  that  passengers  should  follow  when  lodging  complaints  under  the 
Regulation is not entirely clear. According to the Italian NEB it is problematic that the 
Regulation does not specify that passengers should complain to railway undertakings in 
the  first  instance,  as  NEBs  then  need  to  contact  the  railway  undertakings  to  obtain 
information  about  the  incident.  Finally,  the  Regulation  does  not  make  any  connection 
with  passengers'  rights  to  alternative  dispute  resolution  (ADR)84.  The  ADR  Directive 
ensures that consumers have access to independent, fast and cost-effective procedures for 
solving their disputes with businesses out of court. Such out-of-court dispute resolution is 
most often not granted by NEBs, who concentrate their activities on enforcement.  

1.2.2  Secondary issues with the regulation 

The following issues qualify as "secondary" problems as their impact on stakeholders is 
less  than  for  the  "major"  issues.  They  relate  mainly  to  clarifications  of  rules  in  the 
Regulation, definitions and procedures.  

1.2.2.1  Discrimination on the basis of nationality, residence or currency 

(Protection of all passengers (including PRMs) – see Figure I) 

Although the Regulation does not contain a clause to prohibit discrimination on the basis 
of nationality, rail passengers are in principle protected by the Treaty on the Functioning 
of  the  European  Union85.  However,  there  have  been  instances  of  discrimination  on  the 
basis  of  residence  or  currency,  which  would  amount  to  indirect  discrimination  on  the 
basis  of  nationality  (e.g.  if  residents  of  France  are  discriminated  against,  this  will 
disproportionately  discriminate  against  people  of  French  nationality).  The  European 
Passenger Federation (EPF) reported for instance that to be able to use a season ticket or 
a  national  reduction  card  on  a  certain  national  railway,  passengers  must  have  a 
nominative  card  which  can  only  be  obtained  in  the  neighbouring  countries.  This 
represents discrimination on the basis of residence.  

In  another  example,  a  national  railway  has  not  made  available  certain  fares  on  the 
internet  to  passengers  who  did  not  indicate  the  Member  State  of  this  railway  as  their 
country of residence on its website. EPF mentioned examples for Paris  – Geneva TGV 
fares and also for Paris – Barcelona TGV fares. The latter discrimination issue received 
some  press  coverage and  was  quickly  removed.  It  was  also  addressed by  the  European 
Parliament under a parliamentary written question86. In the Commission's contacts with 
SNCF  and  RENFE  the  former  suggested  that  this  was  a  “technical  error”,  but  other 
similar instances were reported to the Commission through citizens' complaints. This also 
represents discrimination on the basis of residence.  

There  have  also  been  instances  where  passengers  were  discriminated  on  the  basis  of 
currency.  In  particular, citizens  reported that  a  railway  undertaking  offers  tickets  on  its 

84   Directive  2013/11/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  21  May  2013  on  alternative  dispute 
resolution  for  consumer  disputes  and  amending  Regulation  (EC)  No  2006/2004  and  Directive  2009/22/EC 
(Directive on consumer ADR), OJ L 165, 18.6.2013, p. 63 

85   Article 18 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 
86   E-013686-15 

23 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
website  depending  on  the  country  customers  indicate  to  be  their  residence,  e.g.  if  a 
customer  indicates  country  X,  then  tickets  cannot  be  bought  to  “any  station  of  country 
Y”. Customers indicating a continental country of residence cannot buy through tickets 
beyond  the  UK  Eurostar  stations.  Eurostar  justifies  this  policy  by  claiming  that  some 
fares  are  only  available  in  pounds  sterling  (and  only  visible  when  selecting  “UK”)  and 
others  only  in  euros.  However  the  price  differences  cannot  only  be  explained  by 
exchange  rate  fluctuations.  These  policies  could  also  be  understood  as  indirect 
discrimination on the basis of nationality. NEBs cannot and do not currently address such 
policies, and there is no obligation under the Regulation for Member States to mandate 
them to do so. This means that passengers have to seek redress from national courts in 
cumbersome, lengthy and costly procedures. 

1.2.2.2 

 Definitions  

(Protection of all passengers (including PRMs) – see Figure I) 

A) "Missed connection" 

The  lack  of  a  clear  definition  of  which  situations  are  covered  under  the  concept  of 
"missed connection" adds to the problems related to compensation and assistance, also in 
connection  with  the  issue  of  through  ticketing,  described  above.  Although  the 
Regulation87  considers missing a connection as a situation of disruption it is not entirely 
clear  whether  'missed  connection'  only  means  a  situation  where  a  passenger  misses 
his/her next passenger service in a journey under a transport contract owing to a delay of 
the previous service or whether other scenarios are covered under this notion (e.g. missed 
connections under separate contracts). Neither are the obligations of railway undertakings 
or other actors clearly spelt out in such a situation and passengers may not be adequately 
protected.    The  responses  to  the  open  public  consultation  show  that  21%  (27)  of  the 
citizens believe that the concept of missed connections is unclear with 46% (60) having 
no opinion. On the other hand, 82% (9) of the railway undertakings and 50% (3) of the 
industry federations responded there was no problem with the clarity of the rules in the 
Regulation.  

B) Re-routing and "comparable transport conditions" 

Another  element  that  hinders  the  effectiveness  of  passenger  protection  is  linked  to  re-
routing in case of delays, cancellations or missed connections. According to EPF, many 
railway  undertakings88  limit  what  they  regard  as  ‘comparable  transport  conditions’  for 
rerouting  (as  per  Article  16(b)  and  (c)  of  the  Regulation)  to  their  own  services  and 
exclude  services  from  other  companies  or  other  modes  of  transport,  even  if  this  means 
extra delays for passengers. According to EPF, some railway undertakings89 specify that 
re-routing  must  be  made  under  exactly  the  same  conditions  (type  of  day,  type  of  train, 
peak/off-peak  services,  etc.).  This  appears  to  be  a  too  narrow  interpretation  impacting 

87   Art 15, 18 (4) and in Annex I Art. 11 and Art. 32 of Regulation 1371/2007 
88   without specifying the companies 
89  

Including NS and SNCB, however EPF have noted that they would not like this detail to be included in a public 
facing version of this document 

24 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
negatively on passengers, notably as the Regulation explicitly speaks about "comparable 
transport conditions" without, however, defining that term. 

1.2.2.3  CIV 

(Protection of all passengers (including PRMs) – see Figure I) 

A  number  of  issues  have  also  been  identified  with  regard  to  the  relations  between  the 
Regulation  and  the  internationally  applicable  CIV  UR  of  COTIF90  of  which  a  major 
extract is part of the Regulation and reproduced in Annex I to the Regulation. Problems 
have been identified with definitions of terms in the Regulation and the CIV that could 
be  in  conflict.  Moreover,  there  is  a  risk  of  potential  inconsistencies  between  the 
Regulation  and  the  CIV  in  the  event  the  OTIF91  would  decide  to  amend  the  CIV,  as 
explained below.  

A) Definitions – concept of "carrier" 
The  definition  of  "carrier"  introduced  in  the  Regulation92  is  potentially  in  conflict  with 
the term "carrier" as defined in the CIV93. Indeed, the Regulation defines "carrier" under 
the  list  of  definition,  but  further in  the  text  it  does  not  mention  "carrier"  any  more  and 
puts  all  obligations  on  the  "railway  undertaking".  In  contrast,  the  CIV  focuses  on  the 
term  "carrier"  which  is  broader  in  nature  and  may  include  also  certain  domestic  bus 
operators or international maritime companies in the chain of rail carriage. Unclear and 
inconsistent  provisions  could  lead  to  different  interpretations  of  the  Regulation,  with 
patchy  implementation  and  variable  levels  of  enforcement.  In  the  open  public 
consultation, the majority (9) of railway undertakings considered the notion of ‘carrier’ 
as  unclear.  The  Dutch  passenger  organisation94  requests  to  clarify  the  relationship 
between  both  acts,  notably  as  regards  the  rules  applicable  in  case  of  conflicts.  The 
Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority95 said that the CIV could become an issue 
if  it  was  used  more  often.  However,  the  Finish  NEB96  did  not  identify  the  CIV  as  a 
problem. 

B) Changes to the CIV 

Including  the  CIV  in  Annex  I  to  the  Regulation  risks  posing  legal  and  enforcement 
problems due to the CIV being an International Convention, which is subject to the rules 
of  the  Intergovernmental  Organisation  for  International  Carriage  by  Rail  (OTIF).  OTIF 
has repeatedly in 2013 and 2014 advised the Commission that if the CIV Uniform Rules 
were "to continue to improve passengers' rights and to improve the entire CIV system, it 
will  be  necessary,  from  time  to  time  to  make  arrangements  to  maintain  their 

90   Uniform  Rules concerning  the Contract  of  International  Carriage  of  Passengers by  Rail  (CIV),  which constitute 

the Appendix A to the Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail (COTIF) of 9 June 1999 

91   The Intergouvernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail 
92   Article 3 of the Regulation 
93    Article 3 of the CIV 
94   ROVER 
95   KKV 
96   TraFi 

25 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
effectiveness"97.  OTIF  had  in  mind  for  instance  to  adapt  financial  amounts  for 
compensation in the light of inflation.  The CIV can be amended swiftly through an OTIF 
General Assembly decision. Amending the CIV would mean that the extract in Annex I 
of  the  Regulation  (which  explicitly  cannot  be  amended  through  comitology98,)  would 
differ  from  a  revised  CIV.  Rail  operators  and  NEBs  would  be  confronted  with  two 
different versions of the same rules. In such a situation, passengers in the EU would thus 
not benefit from e.g. increased compensation amounts for damages99. 

1.2.2.4  Assistance in case of major disruptions (contingency planning) 

(Burden on railway undertakings – see Figure I) 

In  the  event  of  major  transport  disruptions  (e.g.  natural  catastrophes,  terrorist  attacks 
etc.), Member States' and transport industry responses to ensure assistance and mobility 
continuity  in  such  situations  vary  or  are  inconsistent.  According  to  the  desk  and  field 
research conducted, the instances of major disruption seem to represent between 0.1% up 
to  around 5%  of the incidents or  irregularity of rail services. For further details, please 
consult Tables A3 and A4 of Annex 5. Although these events are by nature exceptional, 
their impact on railway undertakings as well as on passengers can be significant. In the 
absence  of contingency  planning  involving  all  rail  transport  actors,  passengers  who are 
stranded because their rail transport is severely disrupted might, in some Member States, 
not  get  timely  assistance,  notably  as  regards  re-routing,  care  (including  meals  and 
refreshments) or reasonable accommodation if the journey cannot be pursued100. 

In addition, taking into account the international obligations deriving from the UNCRPD, 
organisations  representing  persons  with  disabilities  should  be  closely  consulted  in  the 
development  and  implementation  of  legislation,  policies  and  other  decision-making 
processes concerning issues related to them.  
Under the 4th Railway  Package101, only  railway undertakings have  to  have  contingency 
plans  in  place,  i.e.  to  provide  information  and  assistance  to  passengers  and  to  preserve 
their mobility in the event of a major transport disruption. However, no such obligations 
exist for other actors such as station and infrastructure managers or national authorities. 
The burden to provide assistance to passengers in the event of major transport disruption 
has  therefore  to  be  borne  by  railway  undertakings  alone.  If  these  are  unable  to  cope, 
passengers  are  left  to  their  own  resources  in  especially  difficult  situations.  This  would 
mainly  affect  vulnerable  categories  such  as  PRMs,  elderly  persons  or  children. 
According  to  the  desk  and  field  research,  most  Member  States  and  some  railway 
undertakings102  have  put  in  place  certain  measures  to  cater  for  events  of  service 
disruption  (see  Table  A4  in  Annex  5  for  further  information).  However,  the  extent  to 

97   See i.a. letter of OTIF to Fotis Karamitsos ARES(2013)3289525 
98   Article 34 of the Regulation 
99   E.g. Article 30 and 45 of CIV 
100    Passengers  were  stranded  because  of  sudden  ice:  http://www.faz.net/aktuell/gesellschaft/wintereinbruch-
floods: 

passagiere-muessen-nacht-im-zug-verbringen-13996086.html 
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/panorama/folgen-der-fluten-wie-das-hochwasser-die-bahn-behindert-
1.1697209 

owing 

or 

to 

101   Article 13 (3) of Directive (EU) 2016/2370 
102   Slovenia, Luxembourg and Greece have not provided information regarding contingency planning. According to 
the  Slovenian  railway  undertaking,  there  are  no  contingency  plans  in  case  of  terrorist  attacks  or  other  security 
threats at the moment 

26 

 
 
                                                 
 
which the different stakeholders are involved varies considerably from one Member State 
to  another  and  notably  when  the  station  manager  and  the  railway  undertaking  are 
separated.  

Burden on railway undertakings in case of 3rd party responsibility 

(Burden on railway undertakings – see Figure I) 

Under the current Regulation, it is the responsibility of railway undertakings to provide 
assistance  and  care  and  pay  compensation  in  the  event  of  long  delays,  missed 
connections  and  cancellations  even  if  it  is  clear  that  a  third  party  caused  the  incident. 
This  would  be  the  case,  for  instance,  if  the  infrastructure  manager  did  not  ensure 
adequate maintenance of the tracks and their environment and leafs or branches fallen on 
the tracks caused a delay. For such a situation the Regulation does not contain specific 
provisions on 3rd party redress. Railway undertakings may thus have more difficulties to 
obtain redress, depending on the applicable national legislation.  

1.2.2.5  Complaint handling by railway undertakings 

(Burden on railway undertakings – see Figure I) 

The  2013  Eurobarometer  on  Europeans’  satisfaction  with  rail  services103  identified  “a 
notable  increase  in  the  proportion  of  Europeans  who  are  satisfied  with  complaint 
handling  mechanisms”  compared  to  previous  years.  In  the  open  public  consultation, 
slightly  more  citizens  (42  or  32%)  believe  that  the  Regulation  had  a  high  or  very  high 
impact on service quality and complaint handling. Those who think its impact was low or 
very  low  (38  or  29%)  are  fewer.  Amongst  passenger/consumer  organisations,  3  (20%) 
thought the Regulation's impact was high, whilst 5 (33%) thought it was low or very low.  

However, the assessment of the complaint handing mechanism carried out in the course 
of  the  ex-post  evaluation  and  impact  assessment  suggests  that  there  is  still  room  for 
improvement  notably  as  regards  unclear  deadlines  for  complaint  handling.  All  railway 
undertakings  indicated  in  the  field  research  that  in  the  absence  of  a  time  limit  for 
submitting  complaints  it  was  difficult  for  them  to  establish  the  details  of  an  incident. 
Moreover, different deadlines exist under national law, increasing legal uncertainty and 
administrative burden (although it is difficult to quantify this). This seems unnecessary in 
view of usual passenger conduct. While currently passengers are free to lodge complaints 
within  the  time  frames  under  national  law,  the  information  received  from  railway 
undertakings, NEBs and EPF indicate that they usually complain within one month after 
an incident.  

1.3  Description of the main problems linked to the issue of "force majeure" (Part 

II – see Figure I) 

Passengers who suffer long delays are entitled to a number of rights, i.e. i) the right to 
choose  between  reimbursement  of  the  ticket  price  or  re-routing  to  their  final 
destination104;  ii)  the  right  to  information  and  assistance105  and  finally  iii)  the  right  to 
request financial compensation in the form of a proportion of the ticket price (25 % for a 

103   http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_382a_en.pdf  
104   Article 16 of the Regulation 
105   Article 18 of the Regulation 

27 

 
 
                                                 
delay of 60 to 119 minutes and 50 % for a delay of 120 minutes or more)106. This latter 
additional payment is meant to compensate passengers for the inconvenience suffered by 
the  delay.  Overall,  railway  undertakings  comply  with  this  requirement  and  national 
legislation  or  carriers'  customer  policy  may  provide  for  even  more  generous 
compensation.  

In 2013, and contrary to the common understanding until then, the Court of Justice of the 
European  Union  ruled107  that  railway  undertakings  also  have  to  pay  compensation  in 
situations where delays were caused by "force majeure".  

"Force  majeure"  is  a  well-established  general  legal  principle  describing  events  which 
may affect the performance of a service/contract but are beyond the control of the parties. 
As the Court already noted in an early Court case108, it implies that "the non-performance 
… is due to abnormal and unforeseeable circumstances beyond the control of the person 
invoking  "force  majeure"  whose  consequences could  not  have  been  avoided  in  spite  of 
the exercise of all due care". In these exceptional circumstances, it is recognised that an 
individual  or  entity  may  be  able  to  escape  responsibility,  on  the  basis  of  the  general 
principles of legal fairness and proportionality, and  in particular an equitable balancing 
of the interests of the parties. The concept is found in national and international law and 
in a wide range of areas of EU law, from agriculture to postal services and the financial 
sector (e.g. credit transfers and payment services) to package travel and passenger rights 
in the air, bus and coach and waterborne transport sectors.  

Indeed,  in  the  area  of  EU  passenger  rights  legislation,  "force  majeure"  clauses  were 
expressly included  in the legislation in  the air, bus and coach and waterborne  transport 
sectors  to  reflect  the  "equitable  balancing"  of  the  interests  of  passengers  and  transport 
operators.  For  example,  under  the  legislation  on  air  passenger  rights109,  obligations  on 
operating  air  carriers  should  be  limited  or  excluded  in  cases  where  an  event  has  been 
caused by "extraordinary circumstances" which could not have been avoided even if all 
reasonable measures had been taken. A comparable provision exists under the Montreal 
Convention.  Under  the  Regulation  on  passenger  rights  in  waterborne  transport110,  the 
carrier is not liable to compensation111 when it can prove that the cancellation or delay is 
caused  by  weather  conditions  endangering  the  safe  operation  of  the  ship  or  by 
extraordinary  circumstances  hindering  the  performance  of  the  passenger  service  which 
could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. Under the 
Regulation on passenger rights in bus and coach transport112, even the obligations of the 
carrier to assistance113 in case of cancelled or delayed departures shall not apply when the 

106   Article 17 of the Regulation 
107   Case C-509/11 
108   C-4/68, Schwarzwaldmilch, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:61968CJ0004&from=EN 
109   According to the 14th and 15th109 recitals of Regulation (EC) 261/2004 
110   Article  20  of    Regulation  (EC)  No  1177/2010  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  24  November 
2010 concerning the rights of passengers when travelling by sea and inland waterway and amending Regulation 
(EC) No 2006/2004 

111   Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 1177/2010 
112   Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 181/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of  16 February 2011 
concerning the rights of passengers in bus and coach transport and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 

113    Article 21of Regulation (EC) No 181/2011 

28 

 
 
                                                 
carrier  proves  that  the  cancellation  or  delay  is  caused  by  severe  weather  conditions  or 
major natural disasters endangering the safe operation of bus or coach services. 

As  regards  the  rail  sector,  before  the  EU  Court  of  Justice  ruling,  it  was  commonly 
understood  by  all  stakeholders,  rail  industry,  national  authorities  and  passenger 
representatives114  alike, 
the  payment  of 
compensation  under  the  rail  passenger  rights  Regulation  via  its  reference  to  the  CIV 
rules, which contain a "force majeure" clause for damages115. However, in its judgment 
in Case C-509/11116 the Court rejected the argument of the Commission and concluded 
that the reference to CIV could not be understood as "carrying over" a "force majeure" 
clause into the compensation obligations set out in Article 17 of the Regulation117.  

that  similar  considerations  applied 

to 

As a result, railway undertakings currently have to pay compensation in situations where 
they  were  not  responsible  for  long  delays  and  which  they  were  not  able  to  prevent. 
Therefore,  the  absence  of  a  clause  in  the  Rail  Passenger  Rights  Regulation  to  exempt 
railway undertakings in such situations from the payment of the compensation amounts 
per se to unfair treatment.   

There is also a clear problem not only of internal coherence within the Regulation itself 
but  also  of  legal  certainty  given  the  drafting  of  Article  15  of  the  Regulation,  which 
expressly refers to the chapter in the CIV, which includes a "force majeure" clause.  

The problem of coherence extends also to the Package Travel Directive, which uses the 
concept  of  "unavoidable  and  extraordinary  circumstances"118  and  which  covers  rail 
journeys  as  part  of  a  package.  The  draft  UNWTO  Convention  on  the  Protection  of 
Tourists and the Rights and Obligations of Tourism Service Providers, which is currently 
being  negotiated,  also  uses 
the  concept  of  "unavoidable  and  extraordinary 
circumstances"119. 

It  has  been  demonstrated  in  the  area  of  air  passenger  rights,  that,  unless  situations  of 
"force  majeure"  or  "extraordinary  circumstances"  are  clearly  and  narrowly  defined,  air 
carriers  tend  to  take  broad  interpretations  of  such  circumstances  in  order  to  reduce  the 
compensation amounts that have to be paid. In the air transport field, this has given rise 
to a series of cases before the Court of Justice which have underlined the key objectives 
of passenger rights legislation. 

114   EPF chairman Trevor Garrod pointed out in 2014 that, in the event of "force majeure", passengers would expect to 
receive 
https://www.greens-
efa.eu/legacy/fileadmin/dam/Documents/Events/2014_01_09_Passenger_rights_for_all/PR_20140109_Garro
d.pdf   

compensation: 

assistance, 

additional 

financial 

not 

but 

115   Article 15 of Regulation 1371/2007 refers to the CIV rules (Article 32(2). 
116   Judgment 
the 

Court 

of 

2013: 
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid
=9ea7d2dc30dd7c3c0b567f904baa8ae2878ebc9ba08c.e34KaxiLc3qMb40Rch0SaxuPaNf0?text=&docid=142
215&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=412580 

September 

26 

of 

117   Compensation of the ticket price 
118   See Articles 3(12), 12(2), 13(7) and (8) and 14(3)(c) of Directive (EU) 2015/2302 of the European Parliament and 
of the Council of 25 November 2015 on package travel and linked travel arrangements, amending Regulation (EC) 
No 2006/2004 and Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council 
Directive 90/314/EEC, OJ L326, 11.12.15 

119   See Standard 9.8 and Recommended Practice 9.1 of Annex II to the draft. 

29 

 
 
                                                 
 
Despite  numerous  requests,  railway  undertakings  have  not  been  very  forthcoming  with 
data on the cost of the current arrangements. However, field and desk research120 made 
evident  the  important  differences  in  estimates  of  "force  majeure"  by  railway 
undertakings. The data represents a very broad range of "force majeure" incidents in the 
EU, which varies from ‘the vast majority’ to less than 1.25% of delays with the average 
of the reported proportions of delays considered to represent ‘force majeure’ of 22.6%. 
These  discrepancies  are  largely  caused  by  the  different  definitions  applied  by  Member 
States121. Therefore, depending on the definition, the proportion of delay minutes which 
could be considered to fall under this definition varies significantly. This becomes even 
more evident while considering the potential scale of delays attributed to force majeure in 
the UK122 of delays that can be attributed to different causes123.  

Table 1 – Scale of delays attributed to "force majeure" events  

Force majeure definition 

Causes included 

% of delay within 
‘force majeure’ 
definition 

1. Any cause of delay outside 
of the control of the railway 
undertaking concerned 

TOC-on-TOC124 
All NR-on-TOC125 , that includes causes 
linked to External factors, Network 
management, ,Non-track access, Severe 
Weather, Autumn & Structures and finally 
problems on tracks 

2. Any cause of delay outside 
of the control of the railway 
undertaking concerned (but 
assuming all TOCs count as 
one organisation) 

All NR-on-TOC, that includes causes126 
linked to External factors, Network 
management, ,Non-track access, Severe 
Weather, Autumn & Structures and finally 
problems on tracks 

3. Any cause of delay which 
could not reasonably have 
been foreseen or could not 
reasonably have been 
mitigated 

4. Any cause of delay which 
could not reasonably have 

External factors; Severe Weather, Autumn 
& Structures; Non-Track Assets 

Track 

External 

Severe Weather, Autumn & Structures 

71.0% 

59.8% 

41.4% 

17.0% 

120   Please consult Tables A5- A9 in Annex 5 
121   The average of the reported proportions of delays considered to represent "force majeure" in Table A5 (Annex 5) 

is 22.6%, which lies between the estimates generated for definitions 3 and 4 in Table A9 (Annex 5) 

122   UK was the only Member State in the desk and field research that provided such a scale 
123    See Table A9 in Annex 5  
124   TOC  =  Train  operating  companies,  TOC-on-TOC  means  incidents  that  one  train  operating  company  causes  to 

another train operating company 

125   NR  is  the  infrastructure  manager  Network  Rail,  NR-on-TOC  means  incidents  caused  by  the  infrastructure 

manager to a train operating company 

126   Definitions in use are provided in Table A8 in Annexe 5 

30 

 
 
                                                 
been foreseen 

Source: (UK, 2015-2016) 

Therefore,  in  the  context  of  this  impact  assessment,  the  Commission  considers  several 
definitions of the "force majeure" concept, which will be further described and assessed 
when considering the policy options (see Section 4).  

Railway  undertakings  have  repeatedly  appealed  to  the  Commission  to  re-introduce  the 
concept of "force majeure" in the Regulation. Similarly, when specifically consulted by 
the Commission on this issue127, 13 Member States have said that they were in favour of 
such a re-introduction. Only 2 Member States were rather against although they said that 
they could perhaps accept it, and 11 Member States had not made up their mind or did 
not answer. Most Member States expressing an opinion made it however very clear that 
the  re-introduction  of  a  force  majeure  clause  should  be  precisely  ring-fenced  to  avoid 
abuses  by  railway  undertakings.  Therefore  it  is  considered  opportune  that  this  impact 
assessment looks into the issue.  

1.4

  How would the problem evolve, all things being equal? (Baseline)128  

1.4.1  Part  I  –  problems  linked  to  the  current  application  of  the  rail  passenger  rights 

legislation 

The rail passenger  demand is  expected to grow by an annual average of 1.8%  between 
2015  and  2035  with  much  of  this  growth  occurring  between  2020  and  2030.  This 
increase  will  be  reflected  more  heavily  in  international  and  domestic  long  distance 
services based on the assumption of an increasing availability of high speed services and 
the  implementation  of  the  fourth  railway  package.  The  rail  sector’s  share  of  passenger 
demand is estimated at 7.6% in 2014 and is expected to rise to 9.2% by 2035 against road 
transport with a relevant impact on carbon emissions. 

If the Regulation remains unchanged and no further action at EU level is taken, most of 
the  issues  identified  (with  the  notable  exception  of  some  of  the  problems  linked  to  the 
scope of the legislation) would not be addressed and passengers will continue to face the 
problems that are described in section 1.2.  

Passengers  will  benefit  from  the  phasing-out  of  exemptions  under  Article  2(4)  for 
domestic services at the latest by 2024 and by any national initiative to reduce the scope 
of exemptions before that date. However, in the consultations for this impact assessment, 
Member States revealed that they were not planning to change exemption schemes in the 
short term129. With the further opening of the domestic rail passenger market under the 
4th railway package, there is also a risk of further exacerbating the identified problems, 
even if not all the objectives of domestic liberalisation will be achieved owing to national 
exemptions under the 4th railway package.  

127   The Member States reserve their individual positions on that matter 
128   Annex 4, p.p. 60-63 
129   For analytical purposes, it is assumed that they could consider a progressive phasing out over a few years rather 
than  a  step-change  in  a  single  year  (2024),)  as  they  will  have  to  put  in  place  processes  before  the  expiry  of 
exemptions. 

31 

 
 
 
                                                 
The expiration of the exemptions for domestic services is expected to have an impact on 
social benefits as passengers will be able to enjoy better information on their journey and 
on  passenger  rights  and  assistance  when  disruptions  take  place  (including  PRMs).  The 
expiration  of  the  exemptions  would  also  have  a  material  impact,  in  particular  on  the 
amount of compensation paid for delays according to Article 17 of the Regulation. Thus, 
the costs for railway undertakings will increase slowly.  

Similar  results  are  observed  for  the  assistance  in  case  of  delay  under  Article  18  of  the 
Regulation. The increase in the assistance level in the long-term due to the expiration of 
the  exemptions  is  not  as  important  as  the  compensation  increase.  After  expiration, 
passengers  will  have  the  right  to  assistance  in  all  Member  States  on  all  non-exempted 
services. This again raises the cost for railway undertakings and infrastructure managers 
which  amounts  to  EUR  1,178,029  million  and  for  infrastructure  managers  to  EUR 
687,996 million130 for a 15-year period.  

The Commission proposal for the European Accessibility Act (EAA) aims at improving 
accessibility  in  rail  transport  by  complementing  the  provisions  of  the  PRM  TSI.  Its 
impact  on  rail  transport  services  will  depend  on  its  final  scope  to  be  determined  in  the 
discussions  in  Council  and  European  Parliament.  However,  under  the  baseline,  the 
objective of clarification of passenger rights legislation and improved quality of transport 
of  elderly  and  PRM  passengers  will  not  be  achieved.  Without  strengthened  provisions 
there is a risk that, under the rail market liberalisation of the 4th railway package, PRM 
passengers  are  not  sufficiently  protected.  The  UNCRPD,  the  European  Disability 
Strategy  and  the  EAA  set  out  to  better  integrate  PRMs  in  society.  Under  the  baseline, 
PRM rights are not aligned with the new requirements under these instruments, notably 
as regards assistance to ensure personal mobility and accessibility of information.  

Direct  or  indirect  discrimination  on  the  basis  of  nationality,  residence  or  currency  will 
not  be  addressed  by  NEBs.  The  only  option  for  citizens  suffering  from  alleged 
discrimination would have to refer to Article 18 TFEU in a court procedure. 

As regards the  consistency with other legal acts, the revisions to the CIV UR by OTIF 
would not be reflected in the Regulation and its Annex I, which contains an extract of the 
CIV UR. Annex I cannot be adapted without revision of the Regulation. This means that 
in case of amendments to the CIV UR, railway undertakings in the EU and NEBs would 
be  confronted  with  two  different  legal  acts.  Updates  to  the  CIV  benefitting  passengers 
(e.g. increasing insurance amounts in case of accidents) cannot be reflected in Annex 1. 
Passengers  in  the  EU  would  thus  have  lesser  rights  than  passengers  in  other  OTIF 
member states. 

The Regulation will be included in the Annex of the Consumer Protection Cooperation 
(CPC)  Regulation  2006/2004131,  once  the  Commission's  proposal  for  the  new  CPC 

130   Data based on Cost & Contribution of Rail study (SDG). Data was available for 2013 and the 10 year CAGR has 
been  used  to  arrive  at  revenue  for  2014.  Splits  between  Railway  undertakings  and  IMs  are  based  on  the  EU 
average where the study did not uncover sufficient evidence of the split.  

131   The  proposal  for  a  new  CPC  Regulation  of  25 May  2016131  strengthens  powers and  cooperation procedures for 
competent authorities to address infringements to Union consumer law in a cross-border context (see Article 8 of 
the CPC proposal, which includes, among others, powers to adopt interim measures, powers to sanction, powers to 
order consumer compensation). These powers would have to be implemented as a minimum by all Member States. 
The proposal also includes an obligation for the Commission to activate the cooperation procedure at the EU level 
in  case  it  suspects  that  widespread  infringements  concern  a  large  majority  of  European  consumers  (in  75%  of 

32 

 
 
                                                 
 
Regulation  is  adopted  by  the  co-legislators.  The  CPC  Regulation  provides  for  a 
cooperation  framework  between  national  competent  authorities  to  stop  cross-border 
infringements to Union consumer laws. The inclusion of the Regulation in the Annex of 
the CPC Regulation is expected to strengthen enforcement in a cross-border context for 
the following reasons. 

The actions of national enforcers are limited by the national jurisdictional boundaries. To 
put  an end  to cross-border infringements,  a  cooperation mechanism is  needed, obliging 
the  competent  authority  of  the  jurisdiction  where  the  author  of  the  infringement  is 
established  (with  its  assets)  to  act  against  this  author,  upon  request  of  a  competent 
authority from another Member State's jurisdiction. Where more than two Member States 
are concerned, an additional mechanism of cooperation and coordination is needed. The 
CPC  Regulation  provides  the  legal  basis  for  both  mechanisms.  Its  revision  aims  to 
reinforce the existing procedures and powers in order to adapt the Regulation to the new 
conditions  of  the  digital  market  and  to  ameliorate  the  mechanisms  on  the  basis  of  the 
experience gained during the past 10 years. 

Under  the  baseline,  conflicts  regarding  legal  consistency  with  the  Package  Travel 
Directive  and  its  use  of  the  concept  of  "unavoidable  and  extraordinary  circumstances" 
will not be addressed. 

Regarding  contingency  planning,  different  measures  by  the  various  stakeholders  in 
different  Member  States  will  continue  to  exist.  According  to  the  available  information, 
railway undertakings have ready contingency plans and are required to have them under 
the 4th railway package. According to the stakeholder consultation, in Austria, Belgium, 
Finland,  France,  Germany,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Netherlands,  Romania,  UK,  Denmark, 
Ireland  and  Portugal  other  stakeholders  such  as  station  managers,  infrastructure 
managers, state authorities, police, etc. also have a role in a situation of major disruption, 
but this is not always the case and not in all Member States (Annex 5, Table A4). This 
means  that  in  such  situations  and  in  the  absence  of  mandatory  requirements  for  other 
actors, the railway undertaking might be alone to provide assistance to passengers. This 
might  put  the  railway  undertaking  in  a  difficult  position  or  it  may  not  even  be  able  to 
shoulder  the  burden  e.g.  to  provide  food  or  overnight  accommodation.  As  a  result, 
stranded passengers might not be adequately taken care of. 

Under the baseline scenario, the burden of railway undertakings stemming from unclear 
deadlines  for  complaint  handling  will  continue  to  exist.  Railway  undertakings  will 
continue to keep data and information for an indefinite period of time subject to varying 
national  rules,  leading  to  an  unlevel  playing  field.  Nowadays,  thanks  to  electronic  data 
and storage systems to keep the data should not be a high burden. However, there might 
be problems when railway undertakings  will need to  retrieve incident  information  after 
long periods of time from their files or from another provider. 

Member States or more that are amounting to 75% of the EU population or more). In such cases the Commission 
will launch a procedure requiring national authorities to coordinate a common position assessing the problematic 
practices. Overall Member States are and will remain in charge of investigation and enforcement. Under the CPC 
proposal, in specified cases of Union dimension, Member States' authorities will do so with the assistance of the 
Commission in a coordinated manner by pooling their resources, expertise and thus saving resources and time. 

33 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                 
Finally, Article 38 of the Charter of fundamental rights calls for a high level of consumer 
protection. Article 26 calls for integration and independence of PRMs. These objectives 
will be reached only moderately, given that the identified problems will not be addressed. 

1.4.2 Part II –problems linked to the issue of "force majeure"  

An important component of the compensation costs is linked to "force majeure". Railway 
undertakings will continue to pay compensation in case of major disruptions caused by 
"force majeure". An estimate provided by the Community of European Railways (CER) 
states that for a small-sized company compensation costs due to "force majeure" events 
may reach up to EUR 1 million, while for a medium- and large-sized rail company, this 
amount may reach up to EUR10 million per year. According to the little data provided by 
railway  undertakings  during  the  targeted  stakeholder  consultation,  compensation  costs 
due  to  events  of  "force  majeure"  may  reach  up  to  EUR  4-5  million  per  year  for  a 
medium- and large-sized company (data source is subject to business secrets). This figure 
is supported by the estimates suggested by the impact assessment tool. According to the 
tool, the "force majeure" compensation payments can reach from EUR 10 to 38 million 
per year depending mainly on the size of the company and the year of operation. On the 
other hand, passengers will continue to enjoy the right to claim compensation even when 
delays are caused by "force majeure". 

It  is  important  to  note  the  unpredictable  nature  of  "force  majeure"  events.  When 
compensation  is  paid  in  case  of  "force  majeure",  greatly  different  amounts  apply  from 
one  year  to  another.  This  generates  risks  and  volatility  in  the  business  model  of  rail 
operators,  especially  the  open-access,  non-subsidised  ones,  and  affects  their  ability  to 
invest. Additional analysis is provided in Annex 5. 

In order to ensure a common minimum level of treatment among Member States and to 
limit at maximum the negative impact on passengers the concept of "force majeure" for 
the purpose of this IA needs to be defined restrictively so that only clearly defined and 
exceptional situations can qualify.  

Under  a  narrow  definition  force  majeure  situations  would  be  limited  to  heavy  floods, 
earthquakes,  volcanic  eruptions  and  very  heavy  storms  (known  as  'Acts  of  God').  This 
excludes normal seasonal weather such as autumnal storms and snowfall (even heavy) in 
winter,  interruptions  caused  by  normal  wear  and  tear  of  rolling  stock  or  infrastructure 
even where maintenance is carried out correctly and at regular intervals, theft of metal or 
catenary, vandalism, power cuts, demonstrations on rail tracks, labour strikes or suicides 
which could be considered as being inherent in the operation of the service. It would also 
exclude  terrorist  attacks.  In  addition  to  invoking  "force  majeure"  railway  undertakings 
would have to demonstrate that they have taken all reasonable measures to avoid delays 
of more than 1 hour to be exempted from paying compensation.  

Considering  the  data  provided  by  the  UK  and  assuming  an  equal  probability  of  "force 
majeure" occurrence across Member States, it can be assumed that less than 17% of all 
delays  of more than  1 hour  across the  EU are caused by such circumstances. Based on 
this information, it is assumed that depending on the year in question the level of "force 
majeure"  incidents  could  reach  at  most  17%  -  20%  of  all  delays  exceeding  1  hour. 

34 

 
 
 
Moreover, information from 14 Member States132 made evident that the median value of 
all services being delayed for more than 1 hour in a regular year accounts for 1% across 
the EU. This means that around 7,280 thousand pkm across the EU are affected by "force 
majeure".  Yearly,  the  compensation  the  railway  undertakings  in  the  EU  would  need  to 
pay  due  to  "force  majeure"  events  which  correspond  strictly  to  "Acts  of  God"  could 
fluctuate from EUR 10 to 54 million which accounts for around 0.31%-1.7% decrease of 
their compensation costs and 0.26%-1.4% of their operating costs.  

Under  a  broad  definition,  which  corresponds  to  situations  where  a  railway  undertaking 
proves that a long delay of more than one hour is caused by external factors which would 
include  i.a.  severe  weather  conditions,  cable  theft  or  failures,  vandalism,  fatalities  and 
terrorist  attacks, 
the  percentages  are  changing.  The  compensation  all  railway 
undertakings  in  the  EU  would  need  to  pay  due  to  "force  majeure"  events  under  such  a 
broad definition could fluctuate from EUR 19 to  95 million which accounts  for around 
0.59%-2.99% decrease of their compensation costs and 0.49%-2.47% of their operating 
costs.  

The  above-mentioned  estimates  of  the  total  compensation  costs  related  to  "force 
majeure" events and the percentage of the total operating costs that these costs represent 
suggest that the financial impact of the Court ruling on railway undertakings is definitely 
low133. Thus, there is no economic data that would prove that there is a serious financial 
problem  for  the  railway  undertakings.  However,  the  issue  of  legal  unfairness  still 
persists. In addition, to respond to the repeated requests by all railway undertakings and 
most  of  the  Member  States  which  expressed  an  opinion  during  the  consultation  by  the 
Commission,  the  issue  of  "force  majeure"  and  the  potential  effects  that  the  re-
introduction of a "force majeure" clause could have on the rest of the policy options will 
be analysed and presented separately after the preferred policy option has been chosen.  

2  WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? 

Right to act 

Article 91(1) TFEU serves as the legal basis for the adoption of EU legislation related to 
a  common  transport  policy.  This  covers  provisions  to  protect  the  rights  of  passengers 
when travelling by rail in the EU. This provision was the legal basis for the Regulation, 
and will serve as a legal basis for a future revised Regulation.  

The EU has also received conferral to promote the interests of consumers and to ensure a 
high level of consumer protection (Article 169 TFEU).  

The  EU  shares  competences  with  Member  States  to  regulate  in  the  field  of  common 
transport pursuant to Article 4(2)(g) TFEU. This means that the EU can only legislate as 

132   Please consult Table A6 in Annex 5 
133   It should however be mentioned that the absence of a "force majeure" clause generates risks and volatility in the 
business  model  of  rail  operators,  especially  the  open-access,  non-subsidised  ones,  and  affects  their  ability  to 
invest.  This is  due  to the  unpredictable  nature  of  force  majeure  events  which leads  to  greatly  different  amounts 
being paid from one year to another. 

35 

 
 
 
                                                 
far  as  the  Treaties  allow  it,  and  with  due  consideration  to  the  principles  of  subsidiarity 
and proportionality134. 

Subsidiarity  

While the greater part of rail passenger transport in the EU still takes place on a national 
level (381  billion passenger-kilometres),  a considerable and overall  growing  proportion 
is  carried  out  across  borders  in  the  EU  (22  billion  passenger-kilometres  travelled  on 
international journeys)135. As the EU intends to stimulate rail services as well as cross-
border mobility, notably in agglomerations and regional conurbations there is a need for 
action  at  EU  level  so  that  citizens  travelling  on  domestic  rail  services  of  different  EU 
countries enjoy the same rights136. Disparities in the level of protection between Member 
States due to the current regime of exemptions under the Regulation lead to passengers 
having  different  rights  and  different  means  of  redress  when  using  rail  services  in 
different  Member  States.  This  applies  in  particular  to  PRM  passengers  whose  rights  to 
mobility  are  enshrined  in  the  UNCRPD137.  These  passengers  would  be  encouraged  to 
travel if they can expect equivalent rights to accessibility and assistance when travelling 
in different EU countries. National legislation would also not allow tackling cross-border 
journeys  appropriately as  a single journey would fall  under two or  more legal  regimes. 
The most appropriate level to address the problems identified is therefore at EU level in 
order  to  ensure  a  uniform  high  level  of  passenger  rights  across  all  Member  States  for 
national and international journeys alike.  

Further to the judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-509/11 
of 2013, railway undertakings have to pay compensation to passengers also in situations 
where delays were caused by "force majeure" and which they could not have foreseen or 
prevented. In order to ensure legal fairness for rail operators across the EU with regard to 
other modes of transport and to ensure consistency with other EU legislation such as the 
Package  Travel  Directive  it  seems  appropriate  for  the  EU  to  act.  It  would  also  be 
appropriate at  EU  level to  come  up  with  an  EU-wide  definition  of  the  nature  of  "force 
majeure"  in  order  to  clearly  delineate  these  events,  limit  the  impact  on  passengers  and 
ensure legal certainty for all actors.  

The current Regulation leaves much room for interpretation as regards its application and 
enforcement.  Different  interpretations  and  thus  divergent  application  of  rules  and 
different  practices  are  obstacles  to  the  Single  Market  and  negatively  affect  the 
competition between operators. Moreover, these discrepancies do not allow ensuring the 
same  level  of  passenger  rights  across  all  Member  States  as  originally  laid  down  in  the 
objectives  of  the  Regulation.  Attempts  already  made  to  align  the  understanding  and 
application  between  the  Member  States  through  non-legislative  actions  such  as  the 
interpretative  guidelines  on  the  Regulation138  have  not  yielded  sufficient  result.  Only 

134   Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union [2008] OJ C115/13, Art 5 (3) and (4) 
135   Eurostat 
statistics 

transport 

2016 

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-

explained/index.php/Passenger_transport_statistics 

136   See for instance the strong commitment for cross-border transport and its potential notably in commuter regions 
June  2016 

the  Rotterdam  declaration 

that  was  given 
http://www.benelux.int/files/4914/6726/5385/spoorttopverklaring.pdf 

the  TEN-T 

conference 

in 

in 

at 

137   http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml 
138   Interpretative Guidelines on Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council on rail 

passengers’ rights and obligations – C220, 4.7.2015, p.1 

36 

 
 
                                                 
reinforced common EU rules can create a level playing field for rail transport operators 
while ensuring a basic set of passengers across all EU Member States.  

Consequently, as the objectives cannot be achieved sufficiently by the Member States, it 
seems that EU action would be appropriate and proportionate to achieve this aim. 

3  WHAT SHOULD BE ACHIEVED? (PART I) 

3.1  General policy objective  

In view of the two main problems areas identified in the problem definition, as described 
in  section  1,  there  are  two  general  objectives  to  address  the  identified  problems.  This 
should ensure a fair balance between the interests of passengers and the rail industry. The 
first  policy  objective  is  thus  to  promote  equal  and  strengthened  rights  for  all  rail  users 
including  PRM  in  the  EU.  The  second  policy  objective  is  to  enhance  railway 
undertakings'  competitiveness  and  to  better  allow  them  to  invest  in  the  quality  and 
effectiveness  of  rail  passenger  services,  without  negatively  impacting  the  rights  of 
passengers.  The  two  general  objectives  can  be  seen  as  conflicting  as  benefits  for 
passengers  will  generate  a  financial  burden  for  railway  undertakings  and  benefits  for 
railway  undertakings  risk  generating  a  reduction  in  passenger  rights.  This  has  made  it 
necessary to find a compromise between the two objectives.   

The issue of "force majeure", which is linked to the second general policy objective, is 
dealt with separately following the current analysis under Section 6.  

Specific objectives 

Two  specific  objectives  (SO)  have  been  identified  which  are  linked  to  the  identified 
issues discussed in section 1.2.  

SO1:  improve  the  application  and  enforcement  of  the  Regulation,  so  that  all 
passengers can fully exercise their rights when travelling by rail in the EU 

This objective addresses the problems related to the protection of passengers (including 
PRM).   

Issues with a major impact on passengers described in section 1.2.1.:  

-  Issues  regarding  exemptions  (scope  of  the  Regulation  –  Section  1.2.1.1)  should  be 
addressed to allow a more uniform application of the Regulation in all Member States to 
increase legal certainty of passenger to their rights under the Regulation, wherever they 
travel in the EU.  

-  The  protection  of  PRM  passengers  (Section  1.2.1.2)  should  be  increased  by  ensuring 
improved  and  independent  access  to  information  and  complaint  handling  and  better 
access to transport services through more uniform assistance in all EU Member States.  

-  The  awareness  of  passengers  about  their  rights  should  be  increased  through 
strengthened dissemination of information (Section 1.2.1.3).  

-  The rights of passengers to compensation and assistance in case of missed connections, 
delays  or  cancellations  should  be  reinforced  by  strengthening  the  definition  of  and 
provisions on through ticketing (Section 1.2.1.4). 

37 

 
 
 
-  The  rights  of  passengers  to  an  effective  enforcement  of  the  Regulation  should  be 
strengthened through better NEB complaint handling and cooperation (Section 1.2.1.5).  

Issues  with  a  lesser  impact  on  passengers  described  in  section  1.2.2  (secondary 
issues):  

Protection of rail passengers 

-  Passengers  should  not  be  discriminated  on  the  basis  of  their  nationality,  residence  or 
currency  of  payment  to  ensure  an  equal  treatment  of  passengers  irrespective  of  where 
they buy or how they pay their tickets (Section 1.2.2.1). 

- The clarity of the Regulation should be enhanced by defining certain concepts such as 
"missed connections" and "comparable transport conditions" in the context of re-routing 
(Section 1.2.2.2). 

- Current and possible future inconsistencies with the CIV should be removed to increase 
legal certainty (Section 1.2.2.3). 

SO2:  reduce  the  burden  placed  on  railway  undertakings  across  the  EU  (Section 
1.2.2 – secondary issues) 

-  The  burden  of  providing  assistance  to  passengers  in  the  event  of  major  transport 
disruption (e.g. natural catastrophes but also other events such as terrorist attacks) should 
be  shared  between  all  actors  involved,  including  station  and  infrastructure  managers  
(Section 1.2.2.4) 

-  The  burden  on  railway  undertakings'  liability  in  situations  where  a  third  party  has 
caused  a  long  delay  should  be  reduced  by  allowing  railway  undertakings  to  obtain 
redress from these third parties (Section 1.2.2.5).  

- The administrative burden on railway undertakings stemming from imprecise complaint 
handling procedures should be reduced (Section 1.2.2.6).  

3.2 

Interrelation with other EU policies 

The policy objectives are consistent with general transport policy objectives, namely with 
the  2011  Transport  White  Paper  which  emphasises  the  increasing  importance  of  high 
quality,  accessible  and  reliable  rail  services  for  passenger  transport  and  the  need  for 
mobility  continuity  in  case  of  travel  disruption.  It  also  calls  for  a  clarification  of 
passenger rights legislation as well as for an improved quality of the transport for elderly 
people, passengers with disabilities or reduced mobility.  

The development and liberalisation of the railway market has been pursued by a number 
of "packages" of legislation. A fourth railway package was adopted in December 2016. 
The  objective  of  strengthened  passenger  rights  is  to  protect  passengers  in  a  liberalised 
market.  

Consistency  with  regard  to  carrier  liability  in  the  event  of  "force  majeure"  needs  to  be 
ensured with other pieces of EU legislation such as passenger rights legislation in other 
modes of transport and the Package Travel Directive.  

The  inclusion  of  the  Regulation  in  the  Annex  of  the  future  CPC  Regulation,  which 
enshrines  the  procedures  for  cross-border  investigations,  enforcement  and  coordination 

38 

 
 
 
of investigation and enforcement where more than two Member States are concerned,is 
expected to strengthen cross-border enforcement. 

To increase the share of rail passenger transport in comparison to other modes by making 
it  more  attractive  to  citizens  will  contribute  positively,  albeit  to  a  limited  extent,  to 
lowering  CO2  emissions  and  reducing  costs.  This  is  in  line  with  the  2011  Transport 
White  Paper,  which  also  promotes  the  objective  of  environmental  sustainability  by 
aiming to reduce transport CO2 emissions by 60% by 2050 and the current Commission 
priority "Energy Union and Climate Change Policy". 

Strengthening rights for PRM passengers is in line with the objectives of the UNCRPD to 
which  the  EU  and  its  Member  States  are  party  and  the  European  Disability  Strategy 
2010-2020. Directive (EU) 2016/797 on the interoperability of the rail system (recast)139 
also contains references to accessibility.  
Since  the  accession  of  the  EU  to  OTIF140  in  2013,  the  EU  and  its  Member  States  are 
party to OTIF. An extract of the Convention on International Carriage by Rail (Uniform 
Rules  CIV  of  COTIF141)  is  reproduced  in  Annex  I  of  the  Regulation.  Its  rules  are  thus 
extended  to  domestic  rail  transport  in  the  EU.  As  Members  of  OTIF,  the  EU  and  its 
Member  States  apply  the  CIV  rules,  participate  in  the  General  Assemblies  and  have  a 
vote in case of revisions applied to the CIV.  

Charter of fundamental rights  

Article 38 of the Charter of fundamental rights calls for Union policies to ensure a high 
level  of  consumer  protection.  The  overall  high  level  of  consumer  protection  will  be 
enhanced  by  the  general  policy  objectives  through  strengthening  the  rights  of  rail 
passengers in the EU. Article 26 of the Charter calls for the integration of persons with 
disabilities and requires Member States to take measures to ensure their independence as 
well as social and occupational integration and participation in the life of the community. 

4  WHAT ARE THE VARIOUS OPTIONS TO ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVES? (PART I) 

4.1  Methodology of the policy options construction (PART I) 

Based  on  the  support  work  carried  out  by  external  consultants  and  on  the  stakeholder 
consultation the Commission identified a list of policy measures which have the potential 
to  address the  issues  described. All measures  were assessed under four criteria: i) legal 
feasibility, ii) effectiveness and efficiency, iii) political feasibility and iv) proportionality 
and scope.  

Based on a pre-screened list of the policy measures, presented in Section 4.2, a set of the 
policy options is to be designed. However, the analysis needs to consider two important 
particularities of the problem definition structure discussed in section 1. 

139   OJ L 138/44, 26.5.2016 
140   Agreement  between  the  European  Union  and  the  Intergovernmental  Organisation  for  International  Carriage  by 
Rail  on  the  Accession  of  the  European  Union  to  the  Convention  concerning  International  Carriage  by  Rail 
(COTIF)  of  9  May  1980  ,  as  amended  by  the  Vilnius  Protocol  of  3  June  1999,  OJ  L  51,  23.2.2013,  p.  8, 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:22013A0223(01)&from=EN 

141   Uniform  Rules concerning  the Contract  of  International  Carriage  of  Passengers by  Rail  (CIV),  which constitute 

the Appendix A to the Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail (COTIF) of 9 June 1999 

39 

 
 
                                                 
First of all, due to the absence of hard evidence as well as the political sensitivity of the 
force  majeure  issue  (Part  II  of  the  problem  definition),  this  concept  is  assessed  and 
presented  separately  from  other  problems  identified  in  the  course  of  the  impact 
assessment.  The  policy  options  for  force  majeure  issues  and  their  assessment  are 
presented under Section 6.  

Secondly,  the  high  number  of  issues  under  consideration  in  this  report  entails  a  high 
number  of  policy  options.  Combining  the  various  policy  options  for  each  of  the  issues 
under  consideration  into  packages  of  policy  options  would  lead  to  an  unmanageable 
number  of  such  packages  to  assess.  Although  the  policy  choice  with  regard  to  the 
exemptions may have an impact on the other problems identified, these other problems 
are  not  or  are  only  weakly  linked  to  each  other.  This  allows  us  to  discard  a  highly 
complex approach in which we would design policy packages. Instead, we have chosen 
to apply a sequential approach in which we will assess theme by theme. The robustness 
of  the  conclusion  for  each  of  the themes  will  every  time  be  tested against  the  different 
policy options for the exemptions.  

Moreover,  various  policy  options  are  considered  for  the  problems  that  were  previously 
defined  as  "major".  As  the  impact  of  the  "secondary"  issues  is  only  marginal  on  either 
railway undertakings or passengers, and as policy options are limited for these issues, the 
impact assessment will only consider one possible option other than the baseline for each 
of these issues. 

4.2  Retained regulatory policy measures  

Following the initial assessment the Commission retained the following potential policy 
measures. The table below provides an overview of the retained possible policy measures 
and their link to the problem driver.  

Table 2: Policy measure (by theme) in relation to the major issues identified in the 
context of the current application of the Regulation 

A/A 

Measures 

Description 

1. 

2. 

Scope of the rail passenger rights legislation (Exemptions) 

Advancing removal of 
exemptions for long 
distance domestic 
services to 2020 

Measure would require Member States to remove the 
exemptions for long distance domestic services 4 years 
earlier than under the current provisions of the Regulation 

Limit in time exemptions 
for services with third 
countries  

Measure would introduce a limit by 2024 to the number 
of five-year periods for which services with a significant 
part operated outside the EU could be exempted from the 
Regulation. In view of the difficulties of negotiations 
with Russia and the discussion in the framework of the 
OSJD (Organisation for Co-operation between Railways), 
a "rendez-vous clause" for countries which have services 
with Russia could be arranged for. This means that after 
the expiry of the last five-year period, the situation of 
these countries would be re-assessed to decide whether or 
not exemptions may be prolonged for services with 

40 

Hard/ 
Soft 
measure 

H 

H 

 
 
Russia.  

3. 

4. 

Removal of exemptions 
for urban, suburban and 
regional services when 
they are cross-border 
services  

Remove the possibility to 
apply exemptions for 
urban, suburban and 
regional services 

Measure would require Member States to remove the 
possibility to exempt urban, suburban and regional 
services which operate across borders within the EU 
from the application of the Regulation by 2020. 

Measure would require Member States to remove the 
possibility to exempt urban, suburban and regional 
services by 2020. 

PRM rights 

PRM rights are applicable on all services  

5. 

PRM rights are applicable 
in all Member States and 
on all services 

6. 

Journey information is 
accessible to all PRMs 

Information on passenger 
rights under the 
Regulation is accessible 
to all PRMs 

This measure would make provisions on PRM rights 
under Chapter V (notably assistance at railway stations 
and on board trains and compensation for damaged 
mobility equipment) 142 mandatory for all services, i.e. 
these provisions cannot be exempted by Member States  
for any services 

Information provisions for PRMs 

Measure would require railway undertakings and station 
managers to make journey information accessible to 
persons with all kinds of disabilities, e.g. cognitive 
disabilities (in addition to deaf and blind people whose 
needs are currently covered by the Regulation).   

Measure would require railway undertakings and station 
managers to make information on passenger rights 
accessible to persons with all kinds of disabilities (e.g. 
deaf and blind people, people with cognitive disabilities 
etc.). Currently, the Regulation does not have any 
accessibility requirements for passenger rights 
information (e.g. information on assistance, 
reimbursement, rerouting, compensation etc.).  

Assistance for PRMs at the stations and on board trains 

Best practices exchange 
on disability awareness 
training  

Measure would require the Commission to set up a 
platform for the exchange of best practices on disability 
awareness training between railway undertakings and 
station managers. 

Require disability 
awareness training for rail 
staff 

Measure would require railway undertakings and station 
managers to provide appropriate levels of training for 
different categories of staff (depending on their 

7. 

8. 

9. 

H 

H 

H 

H 

H 

H 

H 

142 Articles 19-25 of the Regulation  

41 

 
 
                                                 
Complaint handling to 
Station Managers / 
Infrastructure Managers 

interaction with travellers) along the lines of staff training 
required under the Air Passenger Rights legislation143. 

Complaint handling mechanism for PRMs :  

This measure would introduce requirements for Station 
and Infrastructure Managers of stations of more than 
10.000 passengers/day to handle passengers' complaints 
for services they are responsible for, e.g. information and 
PRM assistance. Time limits to introduce complaints 
would be aligned with those applicable to complaints to 
railway undertakings.  

Two possible implementation scenarios will be 
considered: 

  Measure will be introduced through guidelines 
  Measure will be introduced through a  revision 

of the Regulation 

Information provisions for all passengers 

Information on rail 
passenger rights  is 
provided together with 
ticket 

This measure would require railway undertakings to 
provide basic information about passenger rights, 
including the right to compensation and assistance, and 
contact details of NEBs either by printing on the ticket or 
provided electronically / electronic ticket. In view of 
space limits this could be done e.g. through a bar code or 
QR code.  

Information on passenger 
rights is provided in 
stations and on board 
trains 

This measure would require railway undertakings and 
station managers to place notices in prominent positions 
at stations which inform passengers of their rights granted 
by the Regulation. 

Issue guidance of good 
practice regarding the 
provision of passenger 
rights information 

This measure would require the Commission to provide 
guidance (e.g. in form of a staff working paper) on what 
constitutes good practice regarding the provision of 
information about the Regulation by railway undertakings 
and station Managers. This could complement the 
interpretative guidance provided in 2015. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

H/S 

H 

H 

S 

Compensation and assistance to passengers in case of missed connections, delays or cancellations 

14. 

Definition of through 
ticket and linked 
obligations 

This measure would define that single journeys which are 
sold in a single purchase, under a single transport contract 
with multiple tickets have always to be considered as a 
‘through ticket’ by railway undertakings and ticket 
vendors. As a result, the rights under the Regulation e.g. 
to assistance, reimbursement, rerouting or compensation 
apply to the whole journey.  

15.  Obligation to sell through 
ticket wherever possible, 

This measure makes it clear, as already pointed out in the 
Interpretative Guidelines, that the possibility to purchase 

H 

H 

143 Article 11 of Regulation 1107/2006 

42 

 
 
                                                 
and burden of proof on 
railway undertakings and 
ticket vendors if no 
through-ticket was sold 

through tickets has to be offered wherever this is 
technically possible. The measure would, however not 
oblige railway undertakings to conclude agreements with 
each other, as this would interfere in their business 
conduct and commercial freedom. Railway undertakings 
and tickets vendors would, in addition, have the burden of 
proof if no through-ticket was sold, i.e. that the 
obligations under the Regulation to e.g. assistance, 
reimbursement, rerouting or compensation do not apply 
to the whole journey but only to the different segments of 
the journey. 

Complaint handling and enforcement 

NEB complaint handling and cooperation 

16. 

NEB reporting on their 
activities 

This measure would require NEBs to report publicly 
about their activities including on the complaint handling 
mechanisms.   

17. 

Detailed instructions on 
the complaint handling 
process 

18 

Duty to NEBs to 
cooperate on cross border 
issues 

This measure would spell out the details of how the 
complaint handling process has to be set up. This 
measure will be inspired by the Commission guidelines 
of 2015144. This would require passengers in particular to 
complain to railway undertakings or station managers in 
the first instance, and to approach an alternative dispute 
resolution body (ADR) or a NEB in a second step. The 
Directive on consumer alternative dispute resolution145 
would be specifically cited with regard to the rights 
passengers have when seeking alternative redress. 

This measure would make mandatory provisions of the 
Commission guidelines146 on NEB responsibilities and 
competencies in cross-border cases.  In particular, it 
would require NEBs to cooperate and to consider 
appointing a ‘lead NEB’ in cross-border cases to avoid 
gaps in complaint handling and ensure that at least one 
NEB will be responsible to handle the complaint in 
question. 

H 

H 

H 

Table 3: Policy measures (by theme) in relation to the secondary issues identified in the context of the 
current application of the Regulation 

A/A 

Measures 

Description 

Hard/ 
Soft 
measure 

144 OJ C 220, 4. 7. 2015 (part 8.1) 
145 Directive 2013/11/EU 
146 OJ C 220, 4. 7. 2015 (part 8.2) 

43 

 
 
                                                 
Measures regarding the protection of passenger rights 

Discrimination on the basis of nationality, residence or currency 

19. 

Non-discrimination 
clause  

This measure involves introducing a general non-
discrimination clause into the Regulation. This clause would 
specifically ban any form of discrimination, including price 
discrimination, on grounds of nationality, residence or 
currency of payment. 

20. 

Definition of "missed 
connection" 

21. 

Definition of 
"comparable transport 
conditions" in case of 
re-routing 

Unclear definitions 

This measure would define a "missed connection" as a 
situation where a passenger misses his/her next passenger 
service in a journey under a transport contract owing to a 
delay of the previous service. The concept includes cross-
border journeys and services with other modes of transport 
under a single transport contract.  

This measure would define "comparable transport conditions" 
in the context of rerouting as follows: 'comparable transport 
conditions' mean that, depending on the circumstances, 
passengers shall not be downgraded to transport facilities of a 
lower class. Comparable re-routing shall be offered without 
additional cost to the passenger, reasonable efforts shall be 
made to avoid additional connections and the total travel time 
when using an alternative mode of transport for the part of the 
journey not completed as planned shall be comparable to the 
scheduled travel time of the original journey. The needs of 
persons with disabilities and persons with reduced mobility 
have to be taken into account.  

22.  Definition of "carrier" 

This measure would align the definition of "carrier" to the 
definition in the COTIF/CIV rules, which may also 
encompass other modes of transport. 

23. 

Consistency between 
the Regulation and the 
COTIF/CIV rules 

CIV 

This measure would adjust the text of the Regulation to ensure 
the consistency between the Regulation and the COTIF/CIV 
rules. Two possible implementation scenarios will be 
considered: 

  Removal of Annex I from the Regulation, adjust the text 
of the Regulation accordingly to ensure consistency 
between the Regulation and the COTIF/CIV rules 147, 
notably when the CIV is amended; 

  New provisions to the Regulation allowing the 

Commission to change Annex I of the Regulation, which 
contains an extract of the COTIF/CIV rules, through 
delegated acts to reflect any changes to the CIV without 
requiring a wholesale revision to the Regulation each 
time that the CIV is amended. 

147   Note that the EU acceded to COTIF further to the Agreement of 23 June 2011, OJ L183, 13.7.2011. 

44 

H 

H 

H 

H 

H 

 
 
                                                 
Measures to address the burden on railway undertakings 

Contingency planning 

24. 

Service continuity and 
contingency planning 
in case of massive 
disruption 

The measure will introduce the formal requirement for actors 
other than railway undertakings (e.g. Station and 
Infrastructure Managers, Member States) to have contingency 
planning in place in the event of massive service disruption 
(caused by e.g. by natural catastrophes, strikes, terrorist 
attacks). The modalities of contingency planning as well as 
the coordination of the different either existing or to be 
established contingency plans will be left to the discretion of 
the Member States. For example, Member States in 
cooperation with national authorities can decide on the detail 
and coordination of the plans. 

Burden on railway undertakings in case of 3rd party responsibility 

25.  A right to redress 

This measure introduces a provision in the Regulation giving 
railway undertakings the right to redress to third parties if 
delays or cancellations were caused by their fault or 
negligence. The measure would be in line with the relevant 
provision of Air Passenger Rights legislation148.   

Complaint handling for railway undertakings 

26. 

Specify deadlines for 
passenger to introduce 
complaints 

This measure will introduce a time limit of 3 months within 
which passengers will be able to submit their complaints to a 
relevant service-provider. This threshold is in line with the 
relevant provision of the proposal for a revision of the Air 
Passenger Rights legislation149.  

H 

H 

H 

4.3  Other (discarded) potential policy measures 

We  have  analysed  other  policy  measures  proposed  by  the  stakeholders  during  the 
stakeholder  consultation,  which  were  discarded.  We  have  used  the  following  screening 
criteria to discard them: 

  Legal  feasibility:  Measures  should  respect  any  obligation  arising  from  the  EU 
Treaties  (and  relevant  international  agreements)  and  ensure  respect  of  fundamental 
rights.  Obligations  already  incorporated  in  the  current  Regulation  or  other  existing 
primary or secondary EU legislation may also rule out certain measures. 

  Effectiveness  and  efficiency:  Some  measures  would  achieve  a  worse  cost-benefit 

balance than some alternatives. 

  Political  feasibility:  Measures  that  would  clearly  fail  to  get  the  necessary  political 

support for legislative adoption and/or implementation could also be discarded. 

148  Article 13 of Regulation 261/2004  
149   COM (2013) 130, 13.3.2013  

45 

 
 
                                                 
  Proportionality and scope: Measures should only address what is clearly necessary 
at  EU  level  and  not  restrict  the  scope  for  national  decision  making  over  and  above 
what is needed to achieve the objectives satisfactorily. 

The results of this screening are summarized in Table A11 in Annex 5. 

4.4  Policy options addressing the problems linked to the current application of the 

Regulation (Part I of the problem definition)  

As  discussed  above,  a  sequential  approach  (i.e.  theme  by  theme)  was  chosen  to  design 
alternative solutions (policy  scenarios) to various problems under Part I of the problem 
definition.  The  tables  below  present  different  policy  scenarios  depending  on  the  issues 
discussed. 

Major issues 

Table  4:  Policy  options  to  address  issues  linked  to  the  scope  of  the  rail  passenger 
rights legislation 

Policy scenario A 

Policy scenario B 

Policy scenario C 

 Advancing removal 
of exemptions for 
long distance 
domestic services to 
2020 (PM1); 
 Limit in time 

exemptions for 
services with third 
countries (PM2) 

 Advancing removal of 
exemptions for long 
distance domestic 
services to 2020 (PM1); 
 Limit in time exemptions 
for services with third 
countries (PM2) 

 Removal of exemptions 
for urban, suburban and 
regional services when 
they are cross-border 
services (PM3) 

 Advancing removal of 
exemptions for long 
distance domestic 
services to 2020 (PM1); 
 Limit in time exemptions 
for services with third 
countries (PM2) 

 Removal of exemptions 
for urban, suburban and 
regional services when 
they are cross-border 
services (PM3) 
 Removal of the 

exemptions for urban, 
suburban and regional 
services (PM4) 

Table 5: Policy options to address issues linked to the PRM rights 

Applicability of PRMs rights to all services 

Policy scenario A 

Policy scenario B 

  Guidelines to promote the application 

of the PRM rights (PM 10 S) 

 Regulatory provision  on the application 

of the RPM rights (PM 10 H) 

Information provisions for PRMs: 

Policy scenario A 

Policy scenario B 

46 

 
 
 
 Journey information is accessible to 

all PRMs (PM5) 

 Journey information is accessible to all 

PRMs (PM5) 

 Information on passenger rights is 

accessible to all PRMs (PM6) 

Assistance for PRMs on the board of the train 

Policy scenario A 

Policy scenario B  

 Best practices exchange on disability 

awareness training (PM7) 

 Require disability awareness training for 

rail staff (PM8) 

Complaint handling mechanism for PRMs : 

Policy scenario A 

Policy scenario B  

 Guidelines on the complaint handling 
to Station Managers / Infrastructure 
Managers (PM 9 S) 

 Regulatory provision  on the complaint 

handling to Station Managers / 
Infrastructure Managers (PM 9 H) 

Table 6: Policy options to address issues linked to the information provisions for all 
passengers 

Policy scenario A 

Policy scenario B  

 Issue guidance of good practice 

regarding the provision of passenger 
rights information (PM13) 

 Information on rail passenger rights  is 
provided together with ticket (PM11) 

 Information on passenger rights is 

provided in stations and on board trains 
(PM12) 

Table 7: Policy options to address issues linked to the compensation and assistance 
to passengers in case of missed connections, delays or cancellations 

Policy scenario A 

Policy scenario B  

  Definition of through ticket and 
linked obligations (PM13); 

  Definition of through ticket and 
linked obligations (PM13); 
  Obligation to sell through ticket 

wherever possible, and burden of 
proof on railway undertakings and 
ticket vendors if no through-ticket 
was sold (PM14) 

Table  8:  Policy  options  to  address  issues  linked  to  the  complaint  handling  and 
enforcement 

Policy scenario A 

Policy scenario B  

  NEB reporting on their activities 

(PM15) 

  Detailed instructions on the 

complaint handling process (PM16) 

47 

 
 
  Duty to NEBs to cooperate on cross 

border issues (PM17) 

Secondary issues  

As described above, for this group of problem the impact assessment will only consider 
one possible solution (by problem) other than the baseline. A list of policy measure by 
topic is considered in Tables 2-3 above.  

5  WHAT  ARE  THE  IMPACTS  OF  THE  DIFFERENT  POLICY  OPTIONS  AND  HOW  DO  THE 

OPTIONS COMPARE? (PART I) 

5.1  General methodological considerations  

Issues  linked  to  the  current  application  of  the  Regulation  (Part  I  of  the  problem 
definition) 

The  methodology  of  the  impact  assessment  follows  the  sequential  approach  (i.e. theme 
by theme) described for the design of the policy option under section 4.1.  

As the first step, the report will examine various policy solutions (scenarios) with regard 
to  the  "major"  and  "secondary"  problems  presented  under  section  4.3.1  and  4.3.2 
respectively. The analysis will be done for each problem separately and will include the 
assessment  of  main  economic  and  social  impacts.  For  the  "secondary"  problems,  the 
assessment will consider a choice between a regulatory change and the baseline. 

Following  this  analysis  a  comparison  of  scenarios  based  on  three  main  criteria  (i.e. 
effectiveness, efficiency and coherence) will be carried out per each theme. As a result, a 
preferred policy scenario per theme will be considered. The final preferred option will be 
composed of a combination of preferred scenarios per topic analysed.  

It  is  important  to  note  that  while  there  are  no  notable  links  and  interdependencies 
between the various problems described, the policy solution under a theme might affect 
the policy solution under another theme. In particular, it is important to assess how the 
choice of the exemption regime could potentially affect the conclusions for other issue. 
Therefore, the sensitivity analysis (depending on the various options for the exemptions) 
will be carried out for each scenario of each "major" problem.  

Issues linked to the economic analysis  

The analysis of impacts covers the baseline scenario and all the policy options. The key 
economic  and  social  benefits  and  costs  are  captured  quantitatively  at  a  level  of  detail 
consistent with the available data. Other impacts are quantified where evidence suggests 
that there is sufficient material and data available to enable quantification, otherwise they 
are  treated  qualitatively.  However  the  analysis  did  not  identify  any  substantial 
environmental effects. Passengers' rights are difficult to be quantified. The assessment of 
the  net  social  value  for  the  whole  society  is  based  on  conflicting  interests  between  the 
two main stakeholders: passengers and railway undertakings. The assessment of impacts 
of each policy option was performed both a) quantitatively for a number of measures and 
b)  qualitatively  (Annex  4,  p.p.41-59).  The  criteria  used  to  compare  the  options 

48 

 
 
 
 
quantitatively are mainly four; they are straightforward and based on the assumption that 
railway  undertakings'  aim  is  profit  maximization.  So,  the  Commission  looked  at  the 
increase/reduction of railway undertakings' costs caused by: 

  The compensation paid to passengers owing to delays; 

  The assistance provided to passengers in the event of disruptions/delays of transport 

services; 

  Staff training on PRM issues. 

As  regards  passengers  the  assumption  is  that  they  aim  at  increasing  their  welfare.  The 
welfare of passengers is assumed to increase/decrease in a direct relationship depending 
on  the  following  economic  criteria  (additional  criteria  could  not  be  quantified  and  are 
explained below): 

  The  compensation  they  receive  owing  to  delays  (increase  in  compensation  equals 

increase in passenger welfare); 

  The  assistance  they  receive  when  disruptions/delays  occur  (increase  in  assistance 

equals increase in passenger welfare) ;  

  Training of staff working on rail passenger services on PRM issues (increase in PRM 

training equals increase in passenger welfare). 

In  addition,  there  are  more  criteria  that  could  not  be  quantified  but  still  contribute  to 
passenger  welfare  such  as  the  increase  of  accessibility,  the  improvement  of  complaint 
handling  mechanisms  by  NEBs  (eg.  timeframe  to  submit  a  complaint,  complaint 
handling to station/infrastructure managers as well, synergies between NEBs), clarity of 
the  term  "through  ticket"  and  obligations  linked  to  it,  clarity  of  the  terms  "missed 
connection",  "carrier"  etc.  For  the  qualitative  analysis,  opinions  of  the  various 
stakeholders were considered as the main benchmark. 

The  above  analysis  becomes  more  complex  when  taken  into  interdependencies  and 
indirect effects that lead to different directions.  

On a short-term analysis, the increase of passenger welfare comes at a cost for railway 
undertakings. In the long run, this might be slightly different as the increase in passenger 
welfare is expected to lead to small increase in demand for rail services which might lead 
that railway undertakings would get part of their "investment" back. On the other hand, 
excessive  costs  for  railway  undertakings  might  lead  to  a  lack  of  investment  from  their 
part that will generate deterioration of service quality and/or increase of costs of tickets. 
This can lead to decrease of passenger welfare and consequent decrease in demand. 

Based on the above and on a set of basic assumptions, an analytical tool (In Annex 4 the 
results of every policy scenario are presented in a print-out form) was developed by an 
external consultant. The tool was fed with evidence and data collected through field and 
desk  research.  The  results  are  disaggregated  by  Member  State  (MS).  The  tool  assesses 
the  changes 
journeys,  compensation  costs, 
compensation  under  "force  majeure"  events,  cost  of  assistance,  PRM  training  costs, 
railway  undertakings'  operating  costs  and  infrastructure  managers'  operating  costs.  All 
costs and benefits are added over a 15-year period (2020-2035) and Net Present Values 
are calculated based on the social discount rate. Every policy measure presented below is 
compared against the results of the baseline scenario unless stated otherwise. Costs and 

in  passenger  kilometres,  passenger 

49 

 
 
benefits are calculated at EU level. Given the assumptions made (see also Annex 4), the 
results should be seen in orders of magnitude. 

5.2  Analysis of policy options  

Measures to address major issues 

Policy  scenarios  to  address  issues  linked  to  the  scope  of  the  rail  passengers 
legislation (exemptions for all passengers) 

Policy scenario A 

Policy scenario B 

Policy scenario C  

 Advancing removal 
of exemptions for 
long distance 
domestic services to 
2020 (PM1); 
 Limit in time 

exemptions for 
services with third 
countries (PM2) 

 Advancing removal of 
exemptions for long 
distance domestic 
services to 2020 (PM1); 
 Limit in time exemptions 
for services with third 
countries (PM2) 

 Removal of exemptions 
for urban, suburban and 
regional services when 
they are cross-border 
services (PM3) 

 Advancing removal of 
exemptions for long 
distance domestic 
services to 2020 (PM1); 
 Limit in time exemptions 
for services with third 
countries (PM2) 

 Removal of exemptions 
for urban, suburban and 
regional services when 
they are cross-border 
services (PM3) 
 Removal of the 

exemptions for urban, 
suburban and regional 
services (PM4) 

Social Impacts 

Extensive use of exemptions by all but 5 Member States is a chief reason that passengers 
may not fully exercise their rights when using rail services. The removal of exemptions 
will  increase  the  protection  of  passengers  compared  to  the  baseline  scenario  as  the 
Regulation  will  be  applicable  more  widely  and  more  uniformly  and  will  therefore 
increase legal certainty for passengers. 

For example, regarding domestic long distance services, currently 4 Member States have 
completely  exempted  their  services  and  10  Member  States  partially.  The  rights  to 
compensation  and  assistance  will  be  available  on  these  services  in  all  Member  States 
instead of 15 (Annex 5 Table A.2). Compared to the baseline scenario, the compensation 
received  by  rail  passengers  is  estimated  to  increase  by  EUR  1  million  (or  by  0.03%) 
between  2020  and  2035.  Compared  to  the  baseline  scenario,  the  level  of  assistance 
received by passengers is estimated to increase incrementally between 2020 and 2035.  

Economic Impacts 

Table 9 – Summary of assessment of scenario A 

50 

 
 
 
Metric (NPV) 

Baseline 

POLICY SCENARIO A150 

Advancing removal of exemptions for long distance domestic 
services to 2020 (PM1) 

  Limit in time exemptions for services with third countries 

(PM2) 

Compensation 
Costs (€m) 

Cost of 
Assistance (€m) 

3172 

663 

Total Costs (€m) 

3835 

+1 

- 

+1 

Incremental 

Thus, policy scenario A is expected to increase the overall cost for railway undertakings 
by about EUR 1 million for the period of 15 years between 2020 and 2035 in comparison 
with the baseline scenario (or increase of 0.031% in compensation costs and 0.026% in 
total costs imputable to the Regulation).  

Table 10  – Summary of assessment of scenario B 

Metric (NPV) 

Baseline 

POLICY SCENARIO B151 

Advancing removal of exemptions for long distance domestic 
services to 2020 (PM1) 

  Limit in time exemptions for services with third countries (PM2) 

  Removal of exemptions for urban, suburban and regional 

services when they are cross-border services (PM3) 

Compensation 
Costs (€m) 

Cost of 
Assistance 
(€m) 

Total Costs 
(€m) 

3172 

663 

3835 

150 Annex 4, policy scenario A, p.p. 64-65 
151 Annex 4, policy scenario B, p.p. 65 

51 

+4 

+1 

+5 

 
 
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
                                                 
Very low 

Policy  scenario  B  is  expected  to  increase  the  overall  cost  for  railway  undertakings  by 
about EUR 5 million for the period of 15 years between 2020 and 2035 in comparison 
with the baseline scenario (increase by 0.13% in total costs). This amount is due to the 
increase of costs of compensation resulting from the removal of the exemptions expected 
to  amount  to  EUR  4  million  (increase  by  0.12%)  between  2020  and  2035  compared  to 
the baseline scenario. The increase of costs of assistance resulting from the removal of 
the  exemptions  will  amount  to  EUR  1  million  (increase  by  0.15%)  between  2020  and 
2035 compared to the baseline scenario. 

Table 11 – Summary of assessment of scenario C 

Metric (NPV) 

Baseline 

POLICY SCENARIO C152 

Advancing removal of exemptions for long distance domestic 
services to 2020 (PM1) 

  Limit in time exemptions for services with third countries 

(PM2) 

  Removal of exemptions for urban, suburban and regional 

services when they are cross-border services (PM3) 

  Removal of the exemptions for urban, suburban and regional 

services (PM4) 

Compensation 
Costs (€m) 
Cost of 
Assistance 
(€m) 
Total Costs 
(€m) 

3172 

663 

3835 

+1,259 

+55 

+1,314 

High 

Policy scenario C is expected to produce for the EU railway undertakings an overall cost 
increase  of  about  EUR  1,314  million  (or  34.26%)  for  the  period  of  15  years  between 
2020  and  2035  in  comparison  with  the  baseline  scenario.  This  amount  is  due  to  the 
increase of the costs of compensation resulting from the removal of exemptions to urban, 
suburban and regional services and would amount to EUR 1,259 million (or by 39.69%) 
between  2020  and  2035  compared  to  the  baseline  scenario.  The  high  level  of  this  cost 
compared  with  the  other  the  policy  scenarios  is  due  to  the  high  number  of  urban, 
suburban  and  regional  services  and  the  corresponding  number  of  passengers  on  these 
services (accounting for round 90 % of annual rail passengers in the EU) compared with 
the  other  services.  The  removal  of  exemptions  to  urban,  suburban  and  regional  will 
increase the costs of assistance to EUR 55 million (or by 8.29%) between 2020 and 2035 
compared to the baseline scenario. 

Likely impacts on public administrations 

152 Annex 4, policy scenario C, p.p. 65-66 

52 

 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Reinforced rights in particular following the removal of the exemption of long distance 
domestic services will increase the costs of ADRs and NEBs especially in the Member 
States  which  had  exempted  entirely  these  services  from  the  Regulation  and  were 
therefore only marginally concerned. 

Likely impacts on third countries, international trade or investment 

No  specific  impacts  are  expected  on  third  countries.  However,  a  measure  to  impose  a 
limit to the number of renewal times for exemptions for services of which a significant 
part  is  carried  out  outside  the  EU  will  put  pressure  on  Member  States  to  accelerate 
negotiations of their bilateral agreements with third countries. This might lead to a higher 
level in passenger protection in third countries as well. 

Preferred policy scenario 

The  removal  of  exemptions  in  general  addresses  the  issue  of  patchy  application  and 
ensures  coherence  in  the  application  of  the  Regulation  across  the  EU.  As  a  higher 
number of passengers will benefit from the Regulation, the degree of convergence with 
the  objectives  of  the  Transport  White  Paper  and  the  Charter  of  fundamental  right  is 
rising.  Thus,  the  policy  scenario  C  is  more  coherent  towards  relevant  other  policy 
objectives,  initiatives  and  instruments,  policy  scenario  B  is  in  the  middle  and  policy 
scenario A is less.  

The removal of exemptions will allow for a more uniform application of the Regulation 
in all Member States increasing legal certainty for all passengers. From the passengers' 
point of view, policy scenario A is the worst, policy scenario B is a middle choice with 
policy  scenario  C  being  the  best  choice  as  it  addresses  all  the  problems  linked  to  the 
scope of the rail passenger right legislation and exemptions and satisfy the first general 
and first specific objectives. On the contrary, policy scenario C is the worst scenario for 
railway  undertakings  as  it  means  excessive  costs  for  them.  This  is  attributed  to  the 
removal of exemptions to urban, suburban and regional services (Table 11). In view of 
these costs, railway undertaking might decide to discontinue certain services rather than 
bearing the cost of applying the Regulation in full. The best economic choice for railway 
undertakings is policy scenario A with the lowest economic burden which also satisfies 
the second general and second specific objectives.  

Policy scenario B proposes a compromise between the two conflicting general objectives. 
It does not impose an excessive economic impact on railway undertakings and covers a 
high  percentage  of  exempted  services,  while  taking  into  account  the  specific  nature  of 
urban, suburban and regional services. Under policy scenario B, these services cannot be 
exempted when they are operating across borders.  

In  combination  with  the  proposed  mandatory  nature  of  provisions  under  Chapter  V  for 
PRM  passengers,  discussed  below,  this  results  in  a  reasonable  partial  lifting  of 
exemptions for these services.  

For the above reasons, policy scenario B is the preferred one as it increases the protection 
of passengers without imposing a high financial burden on the rail industry.  

Policy scenario A 

Policy scenario B 

Policy scenario C  

 Advancing removal 
of exemptions for 

 Advancing removal of 
exemptions for long 

 Advancing removal of 
exemptions for long 

53 

 
 
long distance 
domestic services to 
2020 (PM1); 
 Limit in time 

exemptions for 
services with third 
countries (PM2) 

distance domestic 
services to 2020 (PM1); 
 Limit in time exemptions 
for services with third 
countries (PM2) 

 Removal of exemptions 
for urban, suburban and 
regional services when 
they are cross-border 
services (PM3) 

distance domestic 
services to 2020 (PM1); 
 Limit in time exemptions 
for services with third 
countries (PM2) 

 Removal of exemptions 
for urban, suburban and 
regional services when 
they are cross-border 
services (PM3) 
 Removal of the 

exemptions for urban, 
suburban and regional 
services (PM4) 

Policy scenarios to address issues linked to PRM rights 

Policy scenarios  to  address issues linked PRM  rights  are applicable on all 
services  

Applicability of PRMs rights to all services  

Policy scenario A 

Policy scenario B  

 Guidelines to promote the application 

of the PRM rights (PM 10 S) 

 Regulatory provision on the application 

of the RPM rights (PM 10 H) 

In  this  paragraph  are  analysed  the  impacts  of  removing  the  exemptions  regarding  the 
articles related to PRMs issues.  

Social Impacts 

PRMs are a vulnerable group of travellers who need special attention. Making mandatory 
the provisions under Chapter V related to  PRMs on all rail services will allow them to 
use  rail  services  more  confidently.  The  right  to  receive  appropriate  assistance  on  all 
services will provide them a smoother travel experience and induce them to travel by rail 
more  often,  thus  improving  their  social  inclusion.  Such  a  measure  is  in  line  with  the 
requirements  for  Member  States  under  the  UNCRPD  to  ensure  personal  mobility  of 
persons with disabilities and their full access to transport services. 

Economic Impacts 

Due  to  lack  of  data  specifically  for  PRMs,  data  for  all  passengers  are  used  in  order  to 
give  an  estimation  of  potential  costs  of  policy  measures  targeting  PRMs.  The 
assumptions made are the following: 

  exemptions  on  provisions  related  to  PRMs  are  part  (%)  of  the  general  set  of 
exemptions discussed above concerning all passengers (Annex 5 Tables A2 and A3), 
and 

54 

 
 
 
  compensation  and  assistance  costs  are  related  to  the  number  of  passengers  who  are 

entitled to these (in this case is PRMs).    

For analytical reasons, the structure of the exemptions for all passengers is followed. In 
that case, the provisions for PRMs that can currently be exempted (Chapter V - Articles 
19-25) refer to all services (including urban, suburban and regional services). As a result, 
the scenario for the PRM exemptions follows the policy scenario C when exemptions for 
all  passengers  are  concerned  (Table  11).  The  assumption  is  that  the  costs  for  railway 
undertakings for applying the relevant provisions, will be around 9.3% of the costs for all 
the provisions exempted (Annex 4, p.p. 66-67) (Table 12 below). 

Table 12 – Summary comparison of assessment of scenarios 

Metric (NPV) 

Baseline 

POLICY SCENARIO 

Regulatory provision on the application of the RPM rights (PM 10 
H) 

Compensation 
Costs (€m) 
Cost of 
Assistance 
(€m) 
Total Costs 
(€m) 

3172 

663 

3835 

+113,29 

+4,97 

+118,27 

low 

The above assumptions lead to the conclusion that the costs for railway undertakings are 
low  for  regulatory  provisions  on  the  application  of  the  PRM  rights.  The  increase  in 
compensation  cost  is  expected  to  be  EUR  113.3  million  between  2020  and  2035 
compared  with  the  baseline  scenario,  notably  because  PRM  provisions  will  then  be 
mandatory on all services, including on urban, suburban and regional services. Still, this 
is  an  increase  of  only  3.56%  for  compensation  costs.  In  the  case  that  guidelines  are 
chosen  to  promote  the  application  of  the  PRM  rights,  then  due  to  their  non-binding 
character  fewer  railway  undertakings  are  expected  to  apply  them,  leading  to  an 
incremental cost increase (much less than 3.56%).  

Competitiveness of business 

This  option  is  expected  to  bring  a  slight  indirect  effect  on  the  competitiveness  of 
European rail businesses towards the other modes by an incremental increase in its modal 
share. Increase in passengers' rights notably for PRMs as discussed in social impacts and 
especially  the  increase in  passenger  awareness  notably  for PRMs  is  expected  to  have  a 
slight impact in the passenger demand for rail transportation services. 

Preferred policy scenario 

Removal of exemptions for PRMs mainly satisfies the first general and second objectives 
as  it  will  allow  for  a  more  uniform  application  of  the  Regulation  in  all  Member  States 
increasing legal certainty for PRMs and persons travelling with them. The interpretative 
guidelines  on  the  Regulation  already  include  some  guidance  on  how  to  improve  rail 
transport for PRM passengers. However, the non-binding nature of the guidelines limits 
their impact and scope, e.g. railway undertakings or station managers cannot be required 
to  provide  assistance  where  the  relevant  services  are  exempted  from  the  application  of 

55 

 
 
  
  
 
 
the Regulation. As a result, they avoid the costs linked to assistance and PRMs' benefits 
under the guidelines are limited. Thus, policy scenario A is expected to better satisfy the 
second  general  and  second  objectives  and  to  a  lesser  degree  the  first  general  and  first 
objectives.  For  these  reasons,  policy  scenario  B  is  the  preferred  one  as  it  gives  higher 
benefits to PRMs with a low burden for the railway industry. 

Applicability of PRMs rights to all services  

Policy scenario A 

Policy scenario B  

 Guidelines to promote the application 

of the PRM rights (PM 10 S) 

 Regulatory provision on the application 

of the RPM rights (PM 10 H) 

Policy scenarios to address issues linked information provisions for PRMs 

Policy scenario A 

Policy scenario B  

 Journey information is accessible to 

all PRMs (PM5) 

Social Impacts 

 Journey information is accessible to all 

PRMs (PM5) 

 Information on passenger rights is 

accessible to all PRMs (PM6) 

An increase of PRMs' awareness of their rights is expected by introducing requirements 
for  basic  information  about  journey  and  passenger  rights  to  be  provided  in  alternative 
formats  for PRMs. Better  information  regarding their journey, will encourage  PRMs  to 
travel  by  rail  which  will  improve  their  social  inclusion.  On  the  other  hand,  PRMs' 
awareness  will  increase  through  more  and  better  information  about  their  rights.  As  a 
result, more PRMs will be aware of their rights and able to assert them. 

Economic Impacts 

The provision of information on passenger rights in accessible formats for PRMs entails 
some  extra  operational  costs  for  railway  undertakings  and  station  managers  related  to 
displaying information on passenger rights (e.g. at ticket counters or ticketing machines, 
notices in stations and announcements in trains). 

In the absence of data about the costs for railway undertakings and station managers for 
providing  journey  information  and  information  on  passenger  rights  accessible  to  all 
PRMs, an effort is made to estimate the potential compensation they will need to pay to 
passenger  rights  for  PRMs  with  all  kinds  of  disabilities.  Thus,  it  is  assumed  that  the 
compensation  cost  will  be  either  equal  or  less  than  the  compensation  cost  to  all 
passengers (for compensation paid to all passengers due to improved information please 
see the analysis below on section 5.2.3 information provisions for all passenger). Even in 
the case that the compensation costs for railway undertakings to PRMs is 100% of their 
compensation  costs  for  all  passengers,  the  financial  burden  for  railway  undertakings  is 
still low in the course of the 15 year period as explained above (Annex 4, p. 68).   

Table 13 – Summary of assessment of scenario B 

56 

 
 
 
Metric (NPV) 

Baseline 

Policy Scenario B 

Journey information is accessible to all PRMs (PM5) 

Information on passenger rights is accessible to all PRMs (PM6) 

Compensation 
Costs (€m) 

Total Costs 
(€m) 

3172 

3835 

+28 

+28 

Low 

Based on the data estimated by the tool for provision of information for all passengers, it 
could be argued that an increase of maximum EUR 28 million in compensation costs is 
expected between 2020 and 2035 compared with the baseline scenario.  

Preferred policy scenario 

Policy scenario B is the preferred one as it constitutes a complete approach to address the 
first group of general and specific policy objectives without provoking high costs for the 
railway  undertakings  and  station  managers.  In  addition,  the  general  information 
requirements  that  will  be  added  to  the  Regulation  are in  line  with  the  objectives  of the 
White paper, disability legislation and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. For the above 
reasons, policy scenario B is the preferred one.  

Policy scenario A 

Policy scenario B  

 Journey information is accessible to 

all PRMs (PM5) 

Sensitivity analysis 

 Journey information is accessible to all 

PRMs (PM5) 

 Information on passenger rights is 

accessible to all PRMs (PM6) 

The  removal  of  exemptions,  among  other  issues,  leads  also  to  the  fact  that  railway 
undertakings  will  not  be  exempted  anymore  from  their  obligation  to  inform  PRMs  of 
their rights and obligation under this Regulation. Then, better informed PRMs can better 
exercise their rights in an environment with no services exempted. 

On economic terms, checking the preferred policy scenario B for information provisions 
for  PRMs  against  each  of  the  policy  scenarios  on  exemptions  for  PRMs  would  not  be 
expected to create extra costs than the ones already identified under each policy scenarios 
A, B and C (Annex 4).  

The combination of the two preferred policy scenarios (policy scenario B on information 
and  policy  scenario  B  on  exemptions)  can  provide  stronger  protection  of  PRMs  rights 
without  provoking  a  very  high  burden  for  the  rail  industry  (Annex  4,  p.p.  68-69).  This 
supports our choice for policy scenario B as the preferred scenario. 

57 

 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
Policy scenarios to address issues linked assistance for PRMs at the stations and on 
board trains  

Policy scenario A 

Policy scenario B  

 Best practices exchange on disability 

awareness training (PM7) 

 Require disability awareness training for 

rail staff (PM8) 

Social Impacts 

The requirement for disability awareness training for staff working in the rail sector will 
impose obligations on railway undertakings and station managers to provide appropriate 
levels  of  training  for  different  categories  of  staff  depending  on  their  interaction  with 
travellers similarly to the requirements under Air passenger rights legislation (Article 11 
of Regulation 1107/2006). Trained staff will be better able to provide adequate assistance 
to  PRM passengers and will make  them  feel  more comfortable when travelling by rail. 
Training  on  PRM  assistance  and  awareness  is  a  cornerstone  for  staff  who  deal  with 
PRMs  as  they  will  feel  more  confident  and  be  more  efficient  in  assisting  PRMs  with 
different  kinds  of  disabilities,  including  "hidden"  disabilities  (such  as  dementia,  autism 
etc.). Thus, PRMs will feel more comfortable and confident to travel by rail knowing that 
staff  is  well  aware  about  their  needs  and  well  trained  to  respond  to  them.  These  will 
improve  their  social  inclusion  and  would  probably  lead  to  increased  demand  for  rail 
services by this category of passengers.  

Economic Impacts 

Policy scenario A generates, if any, marginal extra costs for rail industry. The costs for 
policy scenario B are presented below (Annex 4, p.p. 69-70). 

Table 14  – Summary of assessment of scenario B 

Metric (NPV) 

Baseline 

POLICY SCENARIO B 

  Require disability awareness training for rail staff (PM8) 

Compensation 
Costs (€m) 

PRM training 
(€m) 

Total Costs 
(€m) 

3172 

3835 

0 

+12 

+12 

low 

Maintaining  all  other  issues  the  same  as  in  the  baseline  scenario,  the  possibility  of 
increase  in  disability  awareness  training  for  rail  staff  is  examined.  Under  this  scenario, 
the  cost  for rail  industry  to  train  their  staff  on  PRM  issues  will  provoke  an  increase  of 
EUR 12 million (0.31% increase in total costs) between 2020 and 2035 compared with 
the baseline scenario.   

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Preferred Policy Scenario 

The  proposal  to  provide  best  practices  on  disability  awareness  training  for  railway 
undertakings  and  station  managers  will  have  an  impact  only  if  and  when  railway 
undertakings  and  station  managers  decide  to  put  into  practice  these  recommendations. 
However,  there is  no  obligation  for them  to  do so.  In  fact,  the  interpretative  guidelines 
already  suggest  that  rail  operators  need  to  train  their  staff  in  order  to  provide  adequate 
assistance  to  passengers  with  different  types  of  disabilities  (par.  5.5).  However,  these 
recommendations did not have any measurable impact up-to-date. 

On  the  other  hand,  introducing  obligations  for  railway  undertakings  and  stations 
managers  to  provide  disability  awareness  training  does  not  seem  to  represent  a  high 
financial  burden  for  them  with  only  0.31%  increase  in  their  total  costs  (notably  as  a 
number of railway undertakings already now provide staff training), while the advantages 
of PRMs' increased confidence in rail travel can be significant. Thus, policy scenario B 
satisfies both objectives in a more effective way. In addition, such an initiative is in line 
with  the  objectives  of  the  White  paper,  disability  legislation  and  the  Charter  of 
Fundamental Rights. 

For the above reasons, policy scenario B is the preferred one.  

Policy scenario A 

Policy scenario B  

 Best practices exchange on disability 

awareness training (PM7) 

Sensitivity analysis 

 Require disability awareness training for 

rail staff (PM8) 

The  removal  of  exemptions  for  PRMs,  among  other  issues,  also  means  that  railway 
undertakings  and  station  managers  will  need  to  make  all  reasonable  efforts  to  provide 
assistance to PRMs whenever and wherever needed. The preferred policy scenario B will 
help them to realise this goal. 

In  economic  terms,  while  checking  the  preferred  policy  scenario  B  for  disability 
awareness  training  against  the  policy  scenario  for  exemptions  (see  Table  10),  the 
preferred  solution  points  in  the  same  direction  (Annex  4).  A  combination  of  these  two 
policy scenarios (policy scenario B on disability awareness training and policy scenario 
B on exemptions) can provide the assistance PRMs need without provoking a very high 
burden for the rail industry (Annex 4). This supports our choice for policy scenario B as 
the preferred scenario. 

Policy scenarios to address issues linked complaint handling mechanisms for PRMs 

Policy scenario A 

Policy scenario B  

 Guidelines on the complaint handling 
to Station Managers / Infrastructure 
Managers (PM 9 S) 

 Regulatory provision on the complaint 

handling to Station Managers / 
Infrastructure Managers (PM 9 H) 

Social Impacts 

59 

 
 
 
Station and infrastructure managers  are in charge of providing PRM assistance, but are 
currently not obliged to receive and handle complaints. The introduction of requirements 
for station and infrastructure managers of stations of more than 10 000 passengers/day to 
handle  passengers'  complaints  about  lack  of  or  inadequate  assistance  will  improve  the 
response  to  complaints  from  PRMs,  who  currently  can  only  complain  to  the  railway 
undertaking.  Improved  complaint  handling  mechanisms  will  benefit  passengers  as  they 
will be encouraged to lodge a complaint and claim redress.  

Economic Impacts  

There are no financial data on this issue. However, the introduction of the obligation for 
complaint  handling  by  Station  Managers  /  Infrastructure  Managers  is  expected  to 
increase their costs slightly.  

Preferred Scenario 

The  proposal  to  provide  guidance  on  complaint  handling  for  station  managers  and 
infrastructure managers can have a restricted impact only if and when they decide to put 
these  recommendations  into  practice.  However,  there  is  no  obligation  to  do  so  and 
positive impacts on passengers risk to be limited.  

On the other hand, regulatory complaint handling provisions for station and infrastructure 
managers will have a higher impact for a broader group of passengers. 

Policy scenario A 

Policy scenario B  

 Guidelines on the complaint handling 
to Station Managers / Infrastructure 
Managers (PM 9 S) 

 Regulatory provision on the complaint 

handling to Station Managers / 
Infrastructure Managers (PM 9 H) 

Overall assessment for PRM preferred policy scenarios 

Table 15 – Summary comparison of assessment of scenarios 

Metric (NPV) 

Baseline 

Policy Package 

Applicability of PRMs rights to all services 

Policy scenario B: 

Regulatory provision  on the application of PRM rights (PM10H) 

Information provisions for PRMs 

Policy scenario B: 

 Journey information is accessible to all PRMs (PM5) 
 Information on passenger rights is accessible to all PRMs 

(PM6) 

Assistance for PRMs on the board of the train 

Policy scenario B: 

  Require disability awareness training for rail staff (PM8) 

Complaint handling mechanism for PRMs 

60 

 
 
  
  
Policy scenario B: 

  Regulatory provision  on complaint handling for Station 

Managers / Infrastructure Managers (PM 9 H) 

3172 

663 

Compensation 
Costs (€m) 

Cost of 
Assistance (€m) 

PRM training 
(€m) 

Total Costs 
(€m) 

3835 

+141,29 

+4,97 

+12 

Low 

According to the results from the tool for the preferred policy package on PRMs (Annex 
4),  the estimation  of the costs remains the same  as  under separate policy scenarios and 
thus strengthens our conclusions.  

Policy scenarios to address issues linked information provisions for all passengers 

Policy scenario A 

Policy scenario B  

 Issue guidance of good practice 

regarding the provision of passenger 
rights information (PM13) 

Social Impacts 

 Information on rail passenger rights  is 
provided together with ticket (PM11) 

 Information on passenger rights is 

provided in stations and on board trains 
(PM12) 

The social impacts analysed for all passengers apply for PRMs as well. Any adjustment 
to  improve  the  information  of  passengers  about  their  rights  will  increase  passengers' 
awareness and the possibility for passengers to complain if these rights are not respected. 
Better information increases chances for passengers to assert their rights.  

An  increase  of  passengers'  awareness  of  their  rights  is  expected  by  introducing 
requirements  for  basic  information  about  passenger  rights  to  be  printed  on  tickets  or 
provided  with  electronic  tickets,  notices  to  be  placed  in  prominent  positions  at  stations 
and on-train notices and/or announcements. Thus, more passengers will be better aware 
of their rights and better able to assert them by lodging complaints.  

Specifically,  information  that  is  provided  to  passengers  regarding  their  rights  (either 
printed  or  electronically)  provides  a  source  of  knowledge  which  passengers  can  use  to 
claim their rights before, during and after the trip. They can trace back their rights at any 
time. If information  is  provided only on the ticket, e.g. through a barcode  or  QR  code, 
there is a risk that passengers do not look at it and ignore its existence. On the other hand, 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
information  that  is  provided  in  stations  and  on  board  trains  will  raise  passenger 
awareness during their trip, but cannot be taken home after a journey. A combination of 
both measures will enable passengers to be aware of their rights during the journey and 
to consult them later when needed. 

Economic Impacts 

The  provision  of  information  on  passenger  rights,  should  entail  some  extra  operational 
costs for railway undertakings related to displaying information on passenger rights (e.g. 
at vending desks or ticketing machines, notices at stations and announcements in trains) 
which are not estimated by the tool (Annex 4, p.p.70-71). However, the inclusion of the 
obligation for the companies to provide information on  passenger rights in stations and 
on board trains in the policy scenario B is expected to increase the railway undertakings' 
compensation costs. These costs are estimated and presented below. 

Table 16 – Summary of assessment of scenarios 

Metric (NPV) 

Baseline 

Policy Scenario B 

Information on rail passenger rights is provided together with 
ticket (PM11) 

Information on passenger rights is provided in stations and on 
board trains (PM12) 

Compensation 
Costs (€m) 

Cost of 
Assistance (€m) 

Total Costs 
(€m) 

3172 

663 

3835 

+28 

+28 

Low 

An  increase  of  EUR  28  million  in  compensation  costs  is  expected  between  2020  and 
2035  compared  with  the  baseline  scenario,  notably  in  view  of  already  existing 
requirements  for  accessible  information  under  Article  8  (2)  of  the  Regulation.  This 
represents  0.88%  increase  in  compensation  costs  railway  undertakings  need  to  pay  and 
0.73% in their total costs.  

Likely impacts on public administrations 

Reinforced  rights  and  a  better  awareness  of  passengers  of  their  rights  might  lead  to  an 
increase in complaints lodged with NEBs. 

Preferred Scenario 

Due to the non-binding nature of the guidelines on good practices regarding the provision 
of  passenger  rights  information  and  based  on  the  above  analysis  and  the  low  cost 
compared to the benefits for the passengers, the preferred policy scenario is B. 

62 

 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
Policy scenario A 

Policy scenario B  

 Issue guidance of good practice 

regarding the provision of passenger 
rights information (PM13) 

Sensitivity Analysis 

 Information on rail passenger rights  is 
provided together with ticket (PM11) 

 Information on passenger rights is 

provided in stations and on board trains 
(PM12) 

The  removal  of  exemptions,  among  other  issues,  leads  also  to  the  fact  that  railway 
undertakings will not be exempted anymore from their obligation to inform passengers of 
their  rights  and  obligation  under  this  Regulation  (Art.  29).  As  a  result,  better  informed 
passengers  can  better  exercise  their  rights  in  an  environment  where  no  services  are 
exempted.  

In economic terms while checking the policy scenario for information provisions for all 
passengers against each of the three policy scenarios for exemptions (policy scenarios A, 
B and C) the result points to the same direction (Annex 4).  

The example below shows the combination of policy scenario B for exemptions for all 
passengers  and  policy  scenario  B  on  information,  which  remains  the  best  one  as  it 
provides stronger protection of passenger rights without provoking any extra burden for 
the rail industry (the rest combinations are presented in Annex 4). The costs remain  the 
same as identified under each policy scenario separately. This supports our choice for the 
policy scenario on information as the preferred scenario. 

Table 17 – Summary comparison of assessment of scenarios 

Metric (NPV) 

Baseline 

Policy Package 

Exemptions for all passengers 

  Advancing removal of exemptions for long distance 

 

domestic services to 2020 (PM1) 
Limit in time exemptions for services with third countries 
(PM2) 

  Removal of exemptions for urban, suburban and regional 
services when they are cross-border services (PM3)  

Information provisions for all passengers 

 

 

Information on rail passenger rights is provided together 
with ticket (PM11) 
Information on passenger rights is provided in stations and 
on board trains (PM12) 

Compensation 
Costs (€m) 

Cost of 
Assistance (€m) 

3172 

663 

63 

+32 

+1 

 
 
  
  
 
 
Total Costs 
(€m) 

3835 

+33 

Low 

Policy scenarios to address issues linked to the compensation and assistance to 
passengers in case of missed connections, delays or cancellations 

Policy scenario A 

  Policy scenario B  

  Definition of through ticket and 
linked obligations (PM13); 

  Definition of through ticket and 
linked obligations (PM13); 

  Obligation for railway undertakings 
and ticket vendors to sell through 
ticket wherever possible, and burden 
of proof on railway undertakings and 
ticket vendors if no through-ticket 
was sold (PM14) 

Social Impacts 

The  clarification  of  the  notion  of  "through  ticket"  and  of  the  relevant  obligations  for 
railway undertakings when they sell journeys under policy measure A will make it clear 
that journeys sold in a single purchase and under a single transport contract always entitle 
the passenger to the rights linked to a ‘through ticket’, unless this is otherwise stated by 
the  railway  undertaking  or  ticket  vendor,  irrespective  of  the  existence  of  specific 
contractual agreements between operators. In the event of delays or missed connections 
when a journey is composed of several segments, passengers will thus be better protected 
and  able  to  get  compensation  or  assistance  for  the  whole  journey  and  not  only  for  the 
separate segments as it is the practice of railway undertakings in many cases nowadays.   

On the other hand, the extra obligation for railway undertakings under policy measure B 
to  offer  through  tickets  wherever  this  is  technically  possible,  will  help  passengers  to 
obtain  a  through  ticket  (i.e.  a  single  contract,  which  might,  however,  be  composed  of 
several  tickets153)  for  their  journeys  even  when  different  railway  undertakings  are 
involved. In addition, the fact that railway undertakings and tickets vendors would have 
to  prove  that  they  informed  the  passenger  in  the  event  that  no  through-ticket  was  sold, 
will  motivate  them  to  comply  with  the  rules  which  will  be  advantageous  for  the 
passengers and provide legal certainty. Passengers would still have the option to combine 
tickets  for  different  segments  of  their  journey  themselves,  e.g.  to  benefit  from  specific 
low fares, but would then not benefit from protection under the Regulation on the whole 
journey, but only on the different segments. As provided in the 4th Railway Package, the 
Commission  will  monitor  market  developments  on  through-ticketing,  report  to  the  EP 
and  the  Council  and,  if  appropriate,  present  further  legislative  proposals  by  December 
2022. 

153  See CIV Uniform Rules, Article 6(2) 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Economic Impacts 
The  railway  undertakings  in  countries  other  than  Germany,  Italy  and  Lithuania154,  will 
face some cost increases regarding compensation costs as they will need to compensate 
passengers or provide assistance in the event of delays or missed connections taking into 
account the whole journey and not only its individual segments. On the other hand, the 
obligation for railway undertakings to offer through tickets might, contrary to the broad 
believe, trigger an increase in the number of tickets they sell for services or routes that 
otherwise  they  would  not  sell  in  segments.  For  example,  for  those  routes  where  the 
alternatives  to  a  combination  of  separate  rail  tickets  are  journeys  by  airplane  or  bus, 
passengers  might  prefer  to  use  the  alternative  mode  of  transport.  If,  however,  railway 
undertakings  offer  through  tickets  with  clear  obligations  regarding  reimbursement, 
compensation  and  assistance  in  the  event  of  delays  or  missed  connections,  then 
passengers might prefer rail over the other modes.   

Likely impacts on public administrations 

The policy scenarios related to through ticketing would not have an additional impact on 
NEBs'  workload.  On  the  one  hand,  the  number  of  cases  where  compensation  and 
assistance will be granted will increase; on the other hand legal clarity will improve, thus 
simplifying the work of NEBs. 

Preferred policy scenario 

The  combination  of  the  two  policy  measures  is  suggested  to  better  serve  passengers. 
According to EPF, passengers are increasingly asking to combine journeys and to obtain 
"through tickets". They should thus also receive the right to adequate protection for the 
whole  journey.  These  rights  would  however  not  apply  if  passengers  deliberately  and 
independently  choose  to  combine  different  segments  to  form  a  journey  (e.g.  to  benefit 
from specific low fares).  

In the absence of economic data on this issue, we cannot estimate the cost for the railway 
undertakings.  
In addition, the Regulation would thus be aligned with the 4th railway package where the 
Commission clarifies certain aspects related to through tickets and their availability and 
declares its intention to monitor rail market developments in the Member States in this 
respect. 

For the above reasons, policy scenario B is the preferred one.  

Policy scenario A 

Policy scenario B  

  Definition of through ticket and 
linked obligations (PM13); 

  Definition of through ticket and 
linked obligations (PM13); 
  Obligation to sell through ticket 

wherever possible, and burden of 
proof on railway undertakings and 
ticket vendors if no through-ticket 

154  Germany,  Italy  and  Lithuania  already  compensate  the  passengers  or  provide  assistance  taking  into  account  the 

whole journey when journeys were sold under a single contract  

65 

 
 
                                                 
was sold (PM14) 

Policy  scenarios  to  address  issues  linked  to  the  complaint  handling  and 
enforcement (NEB complaint handling and cooperation) 

Policy scenario A 

Policy scenario B  

  NEB reporting on their activities 

(PM15) 

Social Impacts 

  Detailed instructions on the 

complaint handling process (PM16) 
  Duty to NEBs to cooperate on cross 

border issues (PM17) 

Increased synergies between NEBs across modes will strengthen NEBs. This will benefit 
passengers by encouraging them to lodge complaints and claim redress. 

Likely impacts on public administrations 

The  clarification  of  the  roles  and  responsibilities  of  NEBs  with  regard  to  complaint 
handling  and  cooperation,  including  on  cross-border  issues,  will  directly  affect  their 
working  modalities.  The  increased  use  of  passengers  of  Alternative  Dispute  Resolution 
bodies to obtain private redress, should not increase the costs of Member States as it will 
reduce NEBs' complaint-handling tasks and therefore reduce their costs. NEBs will thus 
be better able to concentrate on their enforcement activities. 

Preferred Scenario 

For the above reasons, policy scenario B is the preferred one.  

Policy scenario A 

Policy scenario B  

  NEB reporting on their activities 

(PM15) 

  Detailed instructions on the 

complaint handling process (PM16) 
  Duty to NEBs to cooperate on cross 

border issues (PM17) 

Measures to address secondary issues 

Measures regarding the protection of passenger rights 

Policy  scenario  to  address  issues linked  to  discrimination on  the  basis  of  nationality, 
residence or currency 

Policy scenario  

  Prevent discrimination on the basis of nationality, residence or currency (PM19) 

Social Impacts 

66 

 
 
 
 
While  citizens  are  in  principle  protected  from  discrimination  on  the  grounds  of 
nationality  by  Article  18  TFEU,  a  specific  non-discrimination  clause  (as  included  in 
passenger rights legislation for other modes of transport) will ensure that passengers can 
notify  infringements  of  this  right,  e.g.  discrimination  of  on  the  basis  of  residence  or 
currency, directly to NEBs without having to resort to court procedures. As a result, fare 
discrimination will be reduced, thus directly benefitting passengers155.  

Economic Impacts 

It is very difficult to estimate the costs resulting for railway undertakings following the 
introduction  of  a  non-discrimination  clause,  notably  in  view  of  their  assertion  that 
already now they do not discriminate between passengers. 

Policy scenario to address issues linked to clarification of unclear definitions 

Policy scenario  

  Definition of "missed connection" (PM20) 
  Definition of "comparable transport conditions" in case of re-routing (PM21) 
  Definition of "carrier" (PM22) 

Social Impacts 

To  clarify  the  term  "missed  connection"  will  provide  clarity  about  linked  rights  to 
assistance  and  compensation.  These  two  measures  will  improve  rail  passengers'  travel 
experience and secure their rights to onward travel, assistance and compensation under a 
single journey with multiple tickets. In addition, a more precise definition of "re-routing" 
and  "comparable  transport  conditions"  will  render  assistance  more  effective  for 
passengers,  notably  when  re-routing  is  performed  by  another  operator  or  alternative 
means  of  transport  and  prevents  further  delay  for  passengers  by  having  to  wait  for  re-
routing only by own services of the railway undertaking responsible. 

Economic Impacts 

The clarification of the notion of ‘carrier’ in line with its definition under the CIV will 
release railway undertakings from some of their obligations, notably when the operating 
carrier is another mode of transport (e.g. a bus or a ferry). 

155   The Commission undertook to introduce such a clause in its proposal on geo blocking of 25.5.2016 (Proposal for a 
Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  addressing  geo-blocking  and  other  forms  of 
discrimination  based  on  customers'  nationality,  place  of  residence  or  place  of  establishment  within  the  internal 
market  and  amending  Regulation  (EC)  No  2006/2004  and  Directive  2009/22/EC;  COM  (2016)  289  final  of 
25.5.2016). A corresponding recital was added in the Recitals of the proposal ("7 Discrimination can also occur in 
relation  to  services in  the  field of  transport,  in particular  with  respect  to the  sales  of  tickets  for  the  transport  of 
passengers.  However,  in  that  regard  Regulation  (EC)  No  1008/2008  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council, Regulation (EU) No 1177/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EU) No 
181/2011  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  already  contain  broad  prohibitions  of  discriminations 
covering all discriminatory practices that the present Regulation seeks to address. Furthermore, it is intended that 
Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council will be amended to that effect in 
near future. Therefore, and in order to ensure consistency with the scope of application of Directive 2006/123/EC, 
services in the field of transport should remain outside the scope of this Regulation"). 

67 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Policy scenario to address issues linked to uniform rules concerning the Contract for 

International Carriage of Passengers and Luggage by Rail (CIV) 

Policy scenario  

  Consistency between the Regulation and the COTIF/CIV rules (PM23) 

Social Impacts 

The removal of the CIV from Annex I in the Regulation will ensure consistency between 
the  Regulation  and  the  COTIF/CIV  rules.  This  reinforces  the  legal  certainty  for  all 
stakeholders by removing the risk of contradiction between the CIV and the Regulation. 
An  amending  provision  to  the  Regulation  that  allows  for  changes  to  the  CIV  to  be 
reflected  without  a  wholesale  revision  to  the  Regulation  will  lead  to  a  similar  result. 
Updates to  the  CIV with  regard,  e.g. to  increase amounts  for damages  in  case of death 
and personal injury (Article 30 of CIV) would directly benefit passengers in the EU. 

Economic Impacts 

It is very difficult to estimate the costs. 

Measures to address the burden on railway undertakings 

Apart from the provisions that will increase railway undertakings costs, some are aiming 
at a reduction of railway undertakings' economic burden. 

Policy scenario to address issues linked to contingency planning 

Policy scenario  

 

Introduce obligations on service continuity and contingency planning to actors 
other than railway undertakings (PM24) 

Social Impacts 

Obliging actors other than railway undertakings (e.g. station and infrastructure managers, 
Member  States)  to  have  contingency  planning  in  place  in  the  event  of  massive  service 
disruptions  will  increase  passengers'  welfare  because  of  the  integrated  approach  which 
will take place between the different rail players. In this regard, contingency planning is 
complementary to the provisions for railway undertakings under the market pillar of the 
4th  railway  package  and  will  ensure  adequate  care  to  stranded  passengers  even  in  the 
event of major disruption. 

Economic Impacts 

third  parties' 

Burden  sharing  with  other  stakeholders  through  a  clarification  of  railway  undertakings' 
and 
infrastructure  managers,  Member  States  etc.) 
responsibilities  and  obligations  in  situations  of  severe  transport  disruption  through 
contingency planning will limit the cost for railway undertakings. 

(station  and 

Likely impacts on public administrations 

68 

 
 
 
The main factor impacting on the Member States' budget is the requirement for national 
authorities to share the burden with Railway undertakings for the assistance to passengers 
in case of major disruptions (i.e. ensuring mobility continuity and contingency planning). 

Policy scenario to address issues linked to right to redress 

Policy scenario  

  Right to redress to 3rd parties (PM25) 

Economic Impacts 

The costs for railway undertakings are expected to decrease as they will obtain the right 
under  the  Regulation  to  claim  compensation  from  third  parties  when  delays  and 
cancellations  are  caused  by  their  fault  or  negligence  without  having  to  specify  this  in 
commercial  agreements.  On  the  other  hand,  stakeholders  who  are  responsible  for  these 
delays and cancellations, such as station or infrastructure managers, will need to assume 
their responsibility which means an increase of their cost. 

Policy  scenario  to  address  issues  linked  to  complaint  handling  for  railway 
undertakings 

Policy scenario  

  Specify deadlines for passenger to introduce complaints (PM26) 

Social Impacts 

A  detailed  complaint  process  with  time  limits  for  the  introduction  of  claims  will 
stimulate  a  faster  and  better  processing  of  passenger  complaints.  Improved  complaint 
handling  mechanisms  will  benefit  passengers  as  they  will  be  encouraged  to  lodge  a 
complaint and claim redress.  

Economic Impacts 

There are no economic data on this issue. However, the introduction of a time limit for 
lodging complaints is expected to reduce costs for railway undertakings since they will 
no longer need to keep incident data for a long period of time, which leads to large data 
volumes and hence higher costs. In addition, the longer an incident dates back the more 
difficult  it  is  to  verify  the  history  and  background  of  complaints.  This  becomes  even 
more complicated when railway undertakings from several Member States are involved. 
The decrease in costs is, however expected to be rather low, as the targeted consultation 
suggests that, in general, passengers lodge their complaints within three months after the 
incident.  

5.3  The preferred policy option  

The  combination  of  policy  measures  which  contribute  most  to  the  achievement  of  the 
two  general  policy  objectives,  namely  promoting  equal  and  strengthening  rights  for  all 

69 

 
 
 
 
 
rail  transport  users  in  the  EU  and  fair  and  equal  treatment  of  rail  transport  operators 
across the EU, and has the most positive overall impact.  

Policy  measures  addressing  issues  linked  to  the  scope  of  the  rail  passenger  rights 
legislation (exemptions) 

Major issues 

 Advancing removal of exemptions for long distance domestic services to 2020 

(PM1); 

 Limit in time exemptions for services with third countries (PM2) 
 Removal of exemptions for urban, suburban and regional services when they are 

cross-border services (PM3) 

Policy measures addressing issues linked to the PRM rights 

Information provisions for PRMs: 

 Journey information is accessible to all PRMs (PM5) 
 Information on passenger rights is accessible to all PRMs (PM6) 

Assistance for PRMs on the board of the train 

 Require disability awareness training for rail staff (PM8) 

Complaint handling mechanism for PRMs : 

 Regulatory provision  on the complaint handling to Station Managers / Infrastructure 

Managers (PM 9 H) 

Applicability of PRMs rights to all services  

 Regulatory provision  on the application of the RPM rights (PM 10 H) 

Policy  measures  addressing  issues  linked  to  the  information  provisions  for  all 
passengers 

 Information on rail passenger rights  is provided together with ticket (PM11) 
 Information on passenger rights is provided in stations and on board trains (PM12) 

Policy  measures  addressing  issues  linked  to  the  compensation  and  assistance  to 
passengers in case of missed connections, delays or cancellations 

  Definition of through ticket and linked obligations (PM13); 
  Obligation to sell through ticket wherever possible, and burden of proof on 

railway undertakings and ticket vendors if no through-ticket was sold  (PM14) 

Policy  measures  addressing 
enforcement 

issues 

linked  to  the  complaint  handling  and 

70 

 
 
  Detailed instructions on the complaint handling process (PM16) 
  Duty to NEBs to cooperate on cross border issues (PM17) 

Secondary issues 

Policy  measures  addressing  issues  linked  to  discrimination  on  the  basis  of 
nationality, residence or currency  

  Prevent discrimination on the basis of nationality, residence or currency (PM19) 

Policy measures addressing issues linked to unclear definitions 

  Definition of "missed connection" (PM20) 
  Definition of "comparable transport conditions" in case of re-routing (PM21) 
  Definition of "carrier" (PM22) 

Policy measure addressing issues linked to CIV 

  Consistency between the Regulation and the COTIF/CIV rules (PM23) 

Policy measure addressing issues linked to contingency planning 

  Service continuity and contingency planning in case of massive disruption 

(PM24) 

Policy measure addressing issues linked to right to redress 

  Right to redress to 3rd parties (PM25) 

Policy  measure  addressing  issues  linked  to  complaint  handling  for  railway 
undertakings 

  Specify deadlines for passenger to introduce complaints (PM26) 

The above combination of policy measures provides a balanced approach to the divergent 
policy objectives without imposing a high cost on the railway undertakings. Their total 
costs  will  increase  by  EUR  191.26  million  (4.98%)  from  the  baseline  scenario  (Table 
18).  This  increase  is  attributed  mainly  to  5.4%  increase  (EUR  173.29  million)  in 
compensation costs needed to submit to passengers (including PRMs) due to removal of 
exemptions mainly the ones attributed to articles regarding PRM issues.  

Table 18 – Summary assessment of the preferred option 

Metric (NPV) 

Baseline 

Policy option 

Compensation Costs (€m) 

3172 

+173.29 

71 

 
 
 
Cost of Assistance (€m) 

663 

PRM training (€m) 

Total Costs (€m) 

3835 

+5.97 

+12 

+191.26 

Low 

It  emphasises  the  protection  of  passengers,  including  PRMs,  broadens  the  scope  for 
passengers'  rights  and  increases  the  rights  of  PRM  passengers  without  imposing  an 
unproportionately high financial burden on railway underatkings.  

This combination of policy measures is also in line with the proportionality principle. As 
the  current  Regulation  leaves  room  for  interpretation  regarding  its  application  and 
enforcement,  the  application  of  rules  is  divergent  in  Member  States  thus  hindering  the 
Single  Market  and  negatively  affecting  the  competition  between  rail  operators.  These 
differences  also  prevent  a  harmonised  level  of  passenger  rights  across  Member  States. 
Attempts to align the understanding and application between the Member States through 
guidelines  have  not  yielded  sufficient  result.  Only  reinforced  common  EU  rules  can 
ensure  a  harmonised  set  of  basic  passenger  rights  across  all  EU  Member  States  while 
creating a level playing field for rail transport operators. 

Due  to  the  variety  of  the  issues  discussed  and  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader  below 
follows  a  summary  Table  with  the  policy  options  for  which  there  was  an  economic 
analysis.  Thus,  Table  19  presents  the  costs  and  benefits  for  the  main  preferred  policy 
options for which economic data could be retrieved.  

72 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 19 – Summary of costs and benefits of the preferred policy option 

Policy measures 

Costs 

Benefits 

Policy measures addressing issues linked to the scope of the rail passenger rights legislation (exemptions) 

 Advancing removal of exemptions for 
long distance domestic services to 
2020 (PM1); 

 Limit in time exemptions for services 

with third countries (PM2) 

 Removal of exemptions for urban, 

suburban and regional services when 
they are cross-border services (PM3) 

Costs (€m) 

Baseline  Change 

Compensation Costs  

3172 

Cost of Assistance 

Total Costs 

663 

3835 

  Measure  will  allow  for  a  more  uniform  application  of  the 
Regulation  in  all  Member  States  increasing  legal  certainty 
for all passengers. 

  As  a  higher  number  of  passengers  will  benefit  from  the 
Regulation, the degree of convergence with the objectives 
of  the  Transport  White  Paper  and  the  Charter  of 
fundamental right is rising. 

+4 

+1 

+5 

Policy measures addressing issues linked to the PRM rights 

Applicability of PRMs rights to all services 

 Regulatory provision on the 

Costs (€m) 

Baseline 

Change 

  Measure  will  allow  PRMs  using  rail  services  more 

application of the RPM rights (PM 10 
H) 

Compensation Costs  

3172 

+113,29 

Cost of Assistance 

663 

+4,97 

Total Costs 

3835 

+118,26 

confidently  

  The  right  to  receive  appropriate  assistance  on  all  services 
will provide them a smoother travel experience and induce 
them  to  travel  by  rail  more  often,  thus  improving  their 
social inclusion.  
Is  in  line  with  the  requirements  for  Member  States  under 
the  UNCRPD  to  ensure  personal  mobility  of  persons  with 
disabilities and their full access to transport services. 

 

Information provisions for PRMs 

73 

 
 
 
 
 

Journey information is accessible to 
all PRMs (PM5) 

Information  on  passenger 
accessible to all PRMs (PM6) 

rights 

is 

Costs (€m) 

Baseline  Change 

Compensation Costs  

3172 

Total Costs 

3835 

+28 

+28 

Increase of PRMs' awareness of their rights  

 
  Better information regarding their journey, will encourage 
PRMs  to  travel  by  rail  which  will  improve  their  social 
inclusion.  

  More PRMs will be aware of their rights and able to assert 

them 

Assistance for PRMs on the board of the train 

Require  disability  awareness  training  for 
rail staff (PM8) 

Costs (€m) 

Baseline  Change 

PRM training 

Total Costs 

3835 

+12 

+12 

Policy measures addressing issues linked to the information provisions for all passengers 

74 

  Measure  will  impose  obligations  on  railway  undertakings 
and  station  managers  to  provide  appropriate  levels  of 
training for different categories of staff depending on their 
interaction with travellers  

  Trained  staff  will  be  better  able  to  provide  adequate 
assistance  to  PRM  passengers  and  will  make  them  feel 
more comfortable when travelling by rail. 

  Also the staff who deal with PRMs will feel more confident 
and be more efficient in assisting PRMs with different kinds 
including  "hidden"  disabilities  (such  as 
of  disabilities, 
dementia, autism etc.). 

  PRMs will feel more comfortable and confident to travel by 
rail knowing that staff is well aware about their needs and 
well trained to respond to them. 

  Measure  will  improve  PRMs  social  inclusion  and  would 
probably lead to increased demand for rail services by this 
category of passengers. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

Information on rail passenger rights  
is provided together with ticket 
(PM11) 
Information on passenger rights is 
provided in stations and on board 
trains (PM12) 

Costs (€m) 

Baseline  Change 

Compensation Costs  

3172 

+28 

Cost of Assistance 

Total Costs 

663 

3835 

+28 

  Measure  will  increase  passengers'  awareness  and  the 
possibility  for  passengers  to  complain  if  these  rights  are 
not respected.  

  Better  informed  passengers  can  better  exercise  their 
rights in an environment where no services are exempted  

75 

 
 
 
 
6 

PROBLEMS LINKED TO THE ISSUE OF "FORCE MAJEURE" (PART II) 

As  explained  above,  the  issue  of  re-introduction  of  a  "force  majeure"  clause  in  the 
Regulation is examined separately from the rest in this section.   

6.1  What should be achieved? 

General policy objective 

The issue of "force majeure" described in section 1.3 relates to the second general policy 
objective, which is to enhance railway undertakings' competitiveness and to better allow 
them  to  invest  in  the  quality  and  effectiveness  of  rail  passenger  services,  without 
negatively impacting the rights of passengers. 

Specific objectives 

Specific  objectives  are  identified  in  relation  to  the  identified  problems  discussed  in 
chapter  1.  Tackling  the  problem  of  "force  majeure"  would  require  including  the 
following as a specific objective of the revision.  

SO2 bis: ensure that the principle of legal fairness is respected 

The  problem  of  legal  unfairness  and  proportionality  owing  to  the  fact  that  railway 
undertakings  have  to  pay  compensation  for  delays  caused  by  "force  majeure"  although 
they have not caused these delays and could not prevent them is described in section 1.3. 
This  problem  can  be  addressed  by  allowing  railway  undertakings  to  be  exempted  from 
having to pay compensation in a number of exceptional and clearly defined situations. 

6.2  What are the various options to achieve the objectives? 

Retained policy measures addressing the problems linked to "force majeure"  

The analysis in part II of the main problems linked to the issue of "force majeure" and the 
data in the example of UK in Table 1, reveal the potential magnitude of the range of the 
scale  of  delays  that  could  be  attributed  to  "force  majeure"  events.  The  Commission's 
experience  in  the  area  of  air  passenger  rights  has  shown  that  the  only  way  to  prevent 
railway  undertakings  from  taking  advantage  of  these  events  not  to  compensate 
passengers,  is  to  clearly  and  narrowly  define  situations  of  "force  majeure".  For  these 
reasons,  the  two  policy  measures  suggested  are  kept  as  narrow  and  clearly  defined  as 
possible as described below. Other measures concerning the issue of force majeure were 
suggested  by  different  stakeholders,  but  were  discarded  for  reasons  explained  in  Table 
A11 in Annex 5. 

Table 20: Policy measures in relation to force majeure 

A/A 

Measures 

Description 

Hard/ 
Soft 
measure 

1. 

Reintroduction of a 

The measure will add a "force majeure" clause to the 

H 

76 

 
 
 
 
 
"force majeure" 
clause for article 17 
(compensation) 

Regulation, so that railway undertakings would be 
exempted from having to pay compensation where long 
delays were caused by "force majeure" and which they 
were not able to foresee or prevent, even if all 
reasonable measure had been taken.  

2. 

Definition of force 
majeure  

This measure will provide a definition of force majeure 
concept. Two possible definitions will be considered: 

  Narrow definition situations where a railway 

undertaking proves that a long delay of more than 
one hour is caused by heavy  floods, earthquakes, 
volcanic eruptions or very heavy storms (known as 
'Acts of God)' and which it could not have foreseen 
or prevented even if all reasonable measures had 
been taken. 

  Broad definition corresponding to  situations where 
a railway undertaking proves that a long delay of 
more than one hour is caused by external factors 
which would include i. a. severe weather 
conditions, cable theft or failures, vandalism, 
fatalities (including suicides), terrorist attacks. 
Strikes would not be included. See tables A8 and 
A9 in Annex 5  

H 

Both measures related to "force majeure" are linked and cannot be introduced separately. 
In  policy  scenario  A,  the  definition  of  force  majeure  is  restricted  to  only  natural 
catastrophes  (so-called  "acts  of  Gods")  as  described  explicitly  in  section  1.3;  the 
possibility of occurrence of such events is restricted to around 17% (Table 1). In policy 
scenario  B,  the  definition  of  "force  majeure"  is  broadened  beyond  "acts  of  Gods",  and 
reaches the possibility of occurrence of around 41,4% (Table 1).   

Policy option/scenarios addressing the problems linked to the "force majeure"  

Policy  measures  in  relation  to  the  reintroduction  of  the  force  majeure  concept  are 
presented  in  the  table  above.  On  this  basis,  two  policy  scenarios  are  designed.  The 
difference between them lies in the choice made for the second measure, i.e. the broad or 
narrow definition of the "force majeure":  

Policy scenario A 

Policy scenario B 

  Reintroduction of a "force 

majeure" clause for article 17 
(compensation) 

  Narrow definition of force majeure 

  Reintroduction of a "force 

majeure" clause for article 17 
(compensation) 

  Broad definition of force majeure 

77 

 
 
 
 
6.3  What are the impacts of the different policy options (scenarios) and how do they 

compare? 

General methodological considerations 

The  assessment  of  impacts  of  the  reintroduction  of  a  "force  majeure"  clause  will  be 
performed considering the analysis of the previous section. In particular, this assessment 
will consider the economic and social impacts of a "force majeure" clause depending on 
the  two  definitions  described  under  section  1.4.2,  i.e.  a  narrow  definition  and  a  broad 
definition. 

Issues linked to the economic analysis 

The  analysis  of  impacts  follows  the  same  principles  as  for  the  other  policy  measures 
(section 5.1) and covers the baseline scenario and the policy measures related to  "force 
majeure".  

The  difference  compared  to  section  1.5  is  that  regarding  compensation  costs,  the 
Commission looked also at the increase/reduction of railway undertakings' costs caused 
by the compensation paid to passengers for delays caused by "force majeure" events. As 
regards passengers, their welfare is assumed to increase/decrease in a direct relationship 
depending on the compensation they receive owing to delays because of "force majeure" 
events (increase in compensation owing to "force majeure" equals increase in passenger 
welfare). 

Analysis of policy scenarios addressing the problems linked to "force majeure" 

Following  the  ruling  C-509/11(2013)  of  the  EU  Court  of  Justice,  passengers  have  the 
right  to  compensation  irrespective  of  the  cause  of  a  long  delay.  Although  the  re-
introduction of a "force majeure" clause will not affect railway undertakings' obligations 
regarding  assistance,  reimbursement  and  rerouting,  it  will  reduce  their  costs  regarding 
compensation  and,  consequently,  the  level  of  passenger  protection  by  reducing  the 
overall  compensation  that  passengers  could  be  entitled  to.  The  degree  of  reduction  of 
compensation depends on the definition of "force majeure" events. According to railway 
undertakings,  a  relief  from  the  financial  burden  caused  by  "force  majeure"  incidents  is 
expected to reinforce their competitiveness and should allow them to invest in the quality 
and effectiveness of their services. This could include measures from which passengers 
would also benefit, such as investments in better quality services (e.g. with ticket prices 
rising  more  slowly).  The  scale  of  the  reduced  expenses  depends  on  the  definition  of 
"force  majeure"  and  could  be  higher  (under  policy  scenario  B)  or  lower  (under  policy 
scenario A). 

Policy scenario A 

Social Impacts 

In  the  event  that  a  long  delay  of  more  than  one  hour  is  caused  by  heavy  floods, 
earthquakes,  volcanic  eruptions  or  very  heavy  storms  (so-called  'Acts  of  God)'  and  the 
responsible railway undertaking could not have foreseen or prevented the delay even if it 
had taken all reasonable measures, the possible overall compensation level over 15 years 
will  be  reduced  by  EUR  562  million.  Assuming  that  the  compensation level represents 

78 

 
 
 
 
the level of passenger protection under the Regulation, then it will be reduced by 17.62% 
in comparison with the baseline scenario. 

Economic Impacts 

The re-introduction of a force majeure clause with a narrow definition will bring a saving 
of  cost  for  the  railway  undertakings  by  the  removal  of  the  burden.  The  decrease  in 
compensation costs is expected to be EUR 562 million representing 17.62% decrease in 
comparison  with  the  compensation  costs  under  the  baseline  scenario  and  14.65%  in 
comparison  with  the  overall  costs  of  the  regulation  under  the  baseline  scenario.  This 
amount  of  savings  would  positively  affect  the  business  model  of  Railway  undertakings 
and consequently their level of investment. 

Table 21 – Summary of assessment of policy scenario A 

Metric (NPV) 

Baseline 

Policy scenario A 

Narrow  definition  of  FM  (possibility  of 
occurrence: 17%) 

Compensation Costs (€m) 

3172 

Force Majeure (€m) 

Total Costs (€m) 

3835 

Policy scenario B 

Social Impacts 

-562 

-562 

Medium 

In this scenario, a long delay of more than one hour could be caused by external factors 
which  would  include  inter  alia.  severe  weather  conditions,  cable  theft,  vandalism, 
fatalities (including suicides) or terrorist attacks, and the responsible railway undertaking 
could  not  have  foreseen  or  prevented  the  delay  even  if  it  had  taken  all  reasonable 
measures,  the  possible  overall  compensation  level  of  passengers  over  15  years  will  be 
reduced  by  EUR  1,299  million.  Thus,  the  inclusion  of  a  "force  majeure"  clause  will 
reduce  the  level  of  passenger  protection  under  the  Regulation  by  reducing  the  possible 
overall  compensation  level  by  40.95%  in  comparison  with  the  baseline  scenario. 
Economic Impacts 

The re-introduction of force majeure clause with a broad definition is expected to bring 
cost savings for railway undertakings of EUR 1,299 million representing a cost decrease 
in terms of compensation of up to 40.95% in comparison with the baseline scenario and 
33.87%  decrease  of  overall  costs  of  the  regulation  in  comparison  with  the  baseline 
scenario. The removal of this burden will positively affect the business model of railway 
undertakings and their level investments. 

Table 22 – Summary assessment of policy scenario B 

Metric (NPV) 

Baseline 

Policy scenario B 

79 

 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
Compensation Costs 
(€m) 

Force Majeure (€m) 

3172 

Total Costs (€m) 

3835 

Broad  definition  of  FM  (possibility  of  occurrence: 
41,4%) 

-1,299 

-1,299 

High 

Preferred policy scenario 

Table 23 - Policy options to address issues linked to the "force majeure" 

Policy scenario A 

Policy scenario B 

  Reintroduction of a "force majeure" clause for 

article 17 (compensation) 

  Narrow definition of force majeure 

  Reintroduction of a "force majeure" clause for 

article 17 (compensation) 

  Broad definition of force majeure 

Costs for rail industry 

Costs (€m) 

Baseline  Change 

Costs (€m) 

Baseline  Change 

Compensation  

3172 

Compensation  

3172 

Force Majeure 

Total  

3835 

-562 

-562 

Force Majeure 

-1,299 

Total  

3835 

-1,299 

Social impacts – impacts on passengers 

  EUR  562  million  reduce  of  the  level  of 
passenger  protection  under  the  Regulation  by 
reducing  the  possible  overall  compensation 
level they could possibly receive by 17.17% in 
comparison with the baseline scenario 

  EUR  1,299  million  reduce  of  the  level  of 
passenger  protection  under  the  Regulation  by 
reducing  the  possible  overall  compensation 
level  they  could possibly  receive  by  40.95%  in 
comparison with the baseline scenario 

The  re-introduction  of  a  "force  majeure"  clause  better  satisfies  the  second  group  of 
objectives as it would mean a reduction of the burden for railway undertakings. In that 
respect,  policy  scenario  B  better  satisfies  the  second  general  and  second-bis  specific 
objective  as  it  brings  a  higher  financial  relief  for  railway  undertakings  of  EUR  1,299 
million  compared  to  the  baseline  scenario  and  EUR  737  million  compared  to  policy 
scenario A. In addition, it would ensure better coherence with passenger rights legislation 
for other modes and other relevant EU legislation, such as the Package Travel Directive, 
which  contain  provisions  to  exempt  carriers  from  having  to  pay  compensation  under 
certain conditions. Thus, the strictly economic analysis based on the compensation levels 
coincides  with  the  point  of  view  of  railway  undertakings.  To  re-introduce  a  "force 
majeure"  clause  would  be  the  most  desirable  outcome  for  railway  undertakings  and 

80 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
would respond to their repeated calls to the Commission. Depending on the investments 
they  make  with  the  savings  from  paying  less  compensation,  it  could  be  argued  that, 
eventually, the effect could also be positive on passengers. When informally consulted by 
the Commission on this issue, a large majority of the Member States were in favour of a 
"force majeure" clause, as long as "force majeure" was precisely and narrowly defined. 

The re-introduction of a "force majeure" clause satisfies less and could even be opposed 
to the first group of objectives as it will reduce the level of passenger protection and legal 
certainty.  The  re-introduction  of  a  "force  majeure"  clause  would  mean  that  passengers 
would lose the right to financial compensation in the event of "force majeure" incidents. 
As stated in the problem definition (section 1.3), the rights of passengers to information, 
assistance reimbursement or re-routing would not be affected by that measure. Still, there 
will  be  a  certain  reduction  in  passenger  rights,  the  degree  of  which  will  depend  on  the 
definition of "force majeure". The reduction in passenger rights would be higher by EUR 
737 million if policy scenario B was chosen. Therefore, policy scenario A is the preferred 
one for passengers.  

The  reduction  in  passenger  rights  due  to  the reduction  of compensation  in  the  event  of 
"force  majeure,  is  expected  to  be  counter-balanced  by  the  increased  benefits  to 
passengers notably through the reduction of exemptions and specific measures for PRMs 
which is expected to reach EUR 191 million. As the rights to assistance, information etc. 
would not be affected, the high level of consumer protection required by the Charter of 
Fundamental Rights would be guaranteed. Thus, from a strictly economic analysis based 
on the compensation levels received, policy scenario A would be the most desirable for 
passengers and would represent a fair balance between the interests of passengers and the 
rail industry.  

A "force majeure" clause cannot solely be justified by economic reasons and consumers 
and their reprentatives have been rather reluctant on this issue. However, the opinion of 
Member  States  and  railway  undertakings  had  to  be  taken  into  consideration  who  have 
clearly and repeatedly requested its introduction to ensure the principles of lega fairness 
and  proportionality  by  emphasizing  the  importance  of  a  ring-fenced  approach  to  avoid 
abuses by the railway undertakings (as pointed out under points 1.3 and 1.4.2 above).  

The  introduction  of  a  "force  majeure"  clause  even  for  a  very  limited  number  of  events 
might  lead  to  more  legal  uncertainty  and  thus  to  an  increase  in  disputes  between 
passengers and railway undertakings, resulting in more complaints to NEBs/ADRs. The 
burden  on  NEBs  who  might  be  called  upon  for  controversial  cases  is  going  to  rise, 
especially in policy scenario B. 

Sensitivity Analysis 

A sensitivity analysis is made to examine the outcome of a decision if the re-introduction 
of a "force majeure" clause accompanies the preferred policy options. For this reason, the 
tool is run for:  

  Both,  policy  scenario  A  on  "force  majeure"  situations  with  17%  of  occurrence  and 

the preferred policy options for the other measures (see section 6.2.2).  

  Both, policy scenario B on "force majeure" situations with 41.4% of occurrence and 

the preferred policy options for the other measures (see section 6.2.2).  

81 

 
 
  
In  both  sensitivity  tests  there  are  only  incremental  changes  on  the  impacts  of  the  final 
result. Thus, one could argue that the results are the same as when policy scenarios are 
analysed separately. 

Legal basis and nature of the instrument 

Article  169(2)  TFEU  provides  that  the  Union  shall  contribute  to  the  promotion  of 
consumers'  interests  and  ensure  a  high  level  of  consumers'  protection  by  adopting 
measures  pursuant  to  Article  114  TFEU  in  the  context  of  completion  of  the  Internal 
Market. Article 91 TFEU enables the European Parliament and the Council to lay down 
appropriate  provisions  to  implement  appropriate  provision  within  the  framework  of  a 
common  transport  policy.  The  nature  of  the  instrument  would  thus  be  a  revision  to  the 
Regulation for which Article 91 was also the legal basis.  

Consistency with other EU policies 

The preferred option would be fully consistent and compatible with existing EU policies 
in  the  transport  sector,  notably  the  specific  legislation  on  passenger  rights  in  air, 
waterborne and bus and coach transport, the 4th railway package and the PRM TSI and 
TAP  TSI.  It  would  also  be  in  line  with  the  Package  Travel  Directive.  It  would  also  be 
consistent  with  the  UN  Convention  on  the  Rights  of  Persons  with  Disabilities  and  EU 
disability legislation. 

7  MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

The  Commission  services  will  monitor  the  implementation  and  effectiveness  of  this 
initiative through a set of core progress indicators, listed in the table below. The reporting 
of  the  indicators  will  be  annual  following  the  implementation  of  any  changes  to 
legislation  required  to  give  effect  to  the  preferred  option.  It  is  foreseen  that  five  years 
after the entry into force of the proposed legislation, the Commission services will carry 
out  an  evaluation  to  verify  whether  the  objectives  of  the  initiative  have  been  reached. 
Starting year is considered 2020.  

This  evaluation  will  be  carried  out  inter  alia  based  on  the  core  progress  indicators 
referred to below.  

82 

 
 
 
 
Table 24 –: Core progress indicators for monitoring purposes  

Objectives 

Stage 
cycle 

in  policy 

Indicator 

Reported yearly 

Comments 

 by: 

SO1: Improve the application and enforcement of the Regulation, so that all passengers can fully exercise their rights when travelling by rail in the EU 

Issues with a major impact on passengers  

Address issues regarding exemptions 

OO1.1*: Reduce the scope for exempting rail 
services which currently can benefit from the 
provisions on exemptions under the 
Regulation 

Implementation 

Number of types of service 
exempted (TSE) 

Member 
States 

Application 

Number of services 
exempted (SE) 

Member 
States 

83 

The  number  would  only  be  reported  following 
changes in response to legislation (cost should not 
be  significant).  The  number  of  services  exempted 
in 2020 should be higher than the ones in the years 
after 2020. Example for 2021: 

TSE[2020]
𝑇𝑆𝐸[2021]

≥ 1 

Monitoring  of  the  KPI  would  require  an  annual 
estimation (cost could be significant depending on 
changes  to  services  over  time).  The  number  of 
services  exempted  in  2020  should  be  higher  than 
the ones in the years after 2020. Example for 2021: 

SE[2020]
𝑆𝐸[2021]

≥ 1 

 
 
 
 
Increase the protection of PRM passengers 

OO1.2: Specify higher minimum standards 
for PRM assistance  

Implementation 

% of customer-facing staff 
who have received training 
in PRM assistance 
(SPRMT) 

RUs 

Application 

Number of PRMs seeking 
assistance (PRMA) 

RUs 

Establishing  an  objective  measure  will  be 
challenging  if  the  appropriate  level  of  training  is 
open  to  interpretation.  Nevertheless,  data  on  the 
proportion  of  staff  who  have  a  disability 
awareness, at least to some degree, will be a useful 
(additional  cost  of 
measure  of  compliance 
recording staff attendance on training courses over 
and above the cost of the training itself should not 
be significant). Example for 2021: 

SPRMT[2020]
SPRMT[2021]

≤ 1 

This information is reported already, although not 
by  all  rail  undertakings.  (additional  cost  of 
reporting  requests  over  and  above  the  cost  of 
registering  and  responding  to  requests  should  not 
be significant). Example for 2021: 

PRMA[2020]
PRMA[2021]

≤ 1 

Increase of passenger awareness about their rights 

OO1.3: Specify channels by which information 
on passenger rights are to be disseminated 

Implementation 

% of stations complying 
with requirement to provide 
information  

RUs 

The  KPIs  will  capture  the  extent  to  which  rail 
undertakings,  ticket  vendors  and  stations  comply 
with the new regulation  and, over time,  the speed 

84 

 
 
 
 
% rail undertakings and 
ticket vendors complying 
with the requirement to 
provide information on the 
ticket 

Application 

% passengers agreeing that 
they are aware of their 
rights 

RUs 

with  which  they  take  the  necessary  action  (data 
should be relatively simple to collect, and the costs 
of  reporting  information  over  and  above  the  costs 
of compliance should not be significant)  

No. of stations comply[2020]
No. of stations [2020]

≥ 0.9 

No. of RUs comply[2020]
No. of RUs  [2020]

≥ 0.9 

No. of ticket vendors comply[2020]
No. of ticket vendors  [2020]

≥ 1 

This  measure  will  indicate  whether  the  change  in 
policy  is  having  the  desired  effect  from  the 
passenger’s  perspective  (data  collection  will  be 
relatively  simple  where  rail  undertakings  already 
carry  out  passenger  satisfaction  surveys,  but  if  a 
bespoke  survey  is  required  the  costs  will  be 
higher) 

No. of pax. aware of their rights[2020]
No. of pax.   [2020]

≥ 0.2 

Compensation and assistance to passengers 

OO1.4: Ensure that through-tickets are 
provided to passengers 

Implementation 

Number of through tickets 
sold (TTS) 

RUs/ticket 
vendors 

The  KPIs  will  capture  the  extent  to  which  rail 
undertakings/ticket  vendors  comply  with  the  new 
rules  on  selling  through  tickets  wherever  possible 

85 

 
 
 
 
Application 

Compensation granted to 
passengers who travel with 
a through-ticket (CTT) 

RUs 

(the  underlying  data  should  be  collected  in  the 
normal  course  of  operations  and  the  costs  of 
reporting should not be significant). 

No. of TTS[2020]
No. of TTS  [2021]

≤ 1 

This  measure  would  be  expected  to  increase 
following  the  increase  in  the  number  of  through 
tickets  sold  (the  underlying  data  should  be 
collected  in  the  normal  course  of  operations  and 
the costs of reporting should not be significant). 

CTT[2020]
CTT [2021]

≤ 1 

Strengthen the rights of passengers to an effective enforcement of the Regulation through better NEB complaint handling and cooperation 

OO1.5: Specify requirements in respect of 
reporting regarding complaints handling 
activities 

Application 

Number of complaints to 
NEBs (CNEB) 

NEBs 

Application 

Number of complaints to 
RUs (CRU) 

RUs 

86 

NEBs  should  keep  records  of  the  number  of 
complaints received (costs of reporting should not 
be significant). The ratio of the two KPIs (number 
of  complaints  to  NEBs/number  of  complaints  to 
RUs)  should  provide  a  proxy  for  the  complaint 
handling process. 

RUs  should  keep  records  of  the  number  of 
complaints received (costs of reporting should not 
be significant). The ratio of the two KPIs (number 
of  complaints  to  NEBs/number  of  complaints  to 
RUs)  should  provide  a  proxy  for  the  complaint 

 
 
 
 
handling process. 

No. of CRU[2020]
No. of CRU  [2021]

≤ 1 

No. of CNEB[2020]
No. of CRU  [2020]

≥ 1 

Issues with a lesser impact on passengers  

Increase of passenger awareness about their rights 

OO1.6: Eliminate observed instances of 
discrimination in ticket prices by geography 
and sales channel 

Implementation 

Incidence of sales channels 
offering inconsistent prices 
(CIP) 

NEBs 

This would need to be calculated on the basis of a 
sample (same sample every year) of inspections of 
different sales channels (cost should be material).  

Application 

Number of complaints 
about discrimination in 
pricing and other terms 
(CDP) 

NEBs 

No. of CIP[2020]
No. of CIP  [2021]

≥ 1 

NEBs  should  keep  records  of  the  number  of 
complaints received (costs of reporting should not 
be significant). 

No. of CDP[2020]
No. of CDP  [2021]

≥ 1 

87 

 
 
 
 
 
 
SO2: Reduce the burden on railway undertakings across the EU  

The burden of providing assistance to passengers in the event major disruption should be shared between all actors involved 

OO2: Ensure that all relevant stakeholders 
apart from RUs have contingency planning in 
place 

Implementation 

Number of infrastructure 
managers involved in 
contingency planning 
(IMCP) 

Infrastructure 
managers 

Infrastructure managers should keep records of the 
contingency planning they have in place (costs of 
reporting should not be significant). 

Implementation 

Number of station 
managers involved in 
contingency planning 

(SMCP) 

Station 
managers 

SO2bis: Ensure that the principle of legal fairness is respected 

OO2bis: Ensure that rail services are not 
unduly disadvantaged as a result of 
compensating passengers for force majeure 
event which could not been foreseen or 
prevented even if all reasonable measures had 
been taken 

Implementation 

RUs 

Number of force majeure 
incidents that would 
otherwise have generated 
claims for compensation 
(FMI) 

88 

No. of IMCP[2020]
No. of IMCP  [2021]

≤ 1 

Station managers should keep records of the 
contingency planning they have in place (costs of 
reporting should not be significant). 

No. of SMCP[2020]
No. of SMCP  [2021]

≤ 1 

The information required to determine this KPI is 
relatively  simple  to  obtain  provided  the  RUs 
regularly  analyses  performance  data  to  determine 
underlying  causes  (as  part  of  a  process  of 
continuous  improvement).  However,  a  review  of 
service  quality  reports  on  the  ERADIS  database 
suggests  that  such  information  is  not  routinely 

 
 
 
 
 
Application 

Compensation payments 
per passenger-km (CP, pax-
km) 

RUs 

collected  in  Member  States.  Thus  the  costs  of 
putting in place a monitoring framework could be 
substantial. 

No. of FMI[2020]
No. of FMI  [2021]

≤ 1 

This  measure  could  be  expected  to  fall  following 
the  provision  of  relief  in  the  event  of  force 
majeure.  At  the  same  time,  it  normalises  for 
increases in payments arising from increases in the 
volume  of  travel  (the  underlying  data  should  be 
collected  in  the  normal  course  of  operations  and 
the costs of reporting should not be significant) 

CP/pax − km[2020]
CP/pax − km[2021]

≥ 1 

* OO: Operational objective 

89 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX  1:  PROCEDURAL  INFORMATION  CONCERNING  THE  PROCESS  TO  PREPARE  THE 

IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT AND THE RELATED INITIATIVE 

Lead DG: Directorate General Mobility and Transport.  

Agenda 
Reference AP N° 

Planning 

Short title 

Foreseen adoption 

2016/MOVE/006 

Review  of  the  Rail  
Passenger 
Rights 
Regulation 

First half of 2017 

Organisation and timing 

The  work  on  the  Impact  Assessment  started  in  September  2015  when  an  Inter  Service 
Steering  Group  (ISSG)  was  set  up.  The  ISSG  includes  the  following  DGs  and  Services: 
Secretariat General, Legal Service, DGs GROW, EMPL, JUST, ECFIN, NEAR, EEAS. 

Five meetings were organised between September 2016 and April 2017. Further consultations 
with the ISSG were carried out by e-mail.  

The ISSG approved the Inception Impact Assessment that was published in November 2015 
and discussed the main milestones in the process, such as various consultation activities with 
stakeholders,  the  task  specifications  to  launch  a  contract  to  obtain  external  expertise,  key 
deliverables from impact assessment support study, final draft of the impact assessment report 
before  the  submission  to  the  Regulatory  Scrutiny  Board,  revised  draft  report  further  to  the 
negative opinion of the Board.  

Consultation of the RSB 

Further  to  the  meeting  with  the  RSB  on  15  February  2017,  the  Board  has  given  a  negative 
opinion on 17 February 2017. The report was revised to address the comments of the Board. 

Amendments made following the negative opinion of Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) 
of 17 February 2017 

RSB Comment 

Amendment to IAR 

I. Problems, objectives and policy choices – intervention logic 

(B) Main considerations 

1. Lack of clarity regarding the 
issue of force majeure, including 
legal aspects, economic data 
and competition effects on the 
rail sector as compared to other 
transport modes. 

The  impact  assessment  report  has  been  entirely  restructured 
in  order  to  provide  better  clarity  to  the  reader  and  allow  for 
easy navigation through the text.  

The  problems  related  to  this  Regulation  have  been  divided  in 
two parts and have been analysed separately. 

Part I of the problem definition therefore deals with the main 
issues  related  to  the  scope  and  application  of  the  Regulation 

90 

 
 
 
 
(issues such as exemptions, PRM issues, information, through-
ticketing, enforcement etc.).  

In view of the political significance of the force majeure issue 
but  given  the  absence  of  economic  data  which  would  prove 
that  there  is  currently  a  major  financial  or  competition 
problem  for  railway  undertakings,  this  issue  is  analysed  and 
presented separately from the other problems identified in the 
course of the impact assessment.  

Thus,  the  "force  majeure"  concept  belongs  to  part  II  of  the 
problem  definition  and  has  been  analysed  separately  to 
provide  clarity  in  every  aspects  of  the  analysis  such  as  legal 
aspects, economic data etc.   

As  mentioned  above,  the  structure  of  the  impact  assessment 
report  has  been  adapted  to  ensure  more  clarity  and  better 
understanding.  

As  apart  from  the  issue  of  exemptions  there  a  no  clear  links 
with  the  problems,  an  "en  cascade"  approach  has  been 
chosen, where the options for the different issues are assessed 
against  the  different  options  for  exemptions.  Explanations  on 
the  content  of  policy  options  and  stakeholders'  views  have 
been added.  

With the new structure, policy impacts are analysed separately 
for every issue/problem which makes the comparison clearer, 
more straightforward and easier to follow.   

The  last  part  of  the  report  "Monitoring  and  Evaluation"  has 
been  redrafted.  Table  21  has  been  completed  with  new 
operational objectives, and new KPIs have been added. 

2. Insufficient explanation of the 
structure and content of the 
policy options; absence of 
indication of stakeholders' views 
and a limited range of ad hoc 
options. 

3.  Inconsistent analysis of 
policy impacts and unclear 
impact comparison, especially 
regarding cost. 
4.  Incomplete monitoring 
arrangements. 

(C) Further considerations and adjustment requirements  
(1) Force majeure  

5.  The  report  needs  to  clarify 
whether  the  present  initiative 
simply  aims  at  legally  clarifying 
the  general  understanding  or 
the 
rather 
application of the force majeure 
clause  beyond 
the  original 
intention of the legislator and in 
light of the CJEU rulings.  

at  modifying 

Par.  1.2.3.1  "Compensation  to  passengers  in  case  of  major 
disruption" (p. 14) has been redrafted on the whole to par. 1.3 
" Description of the main problems linked to the issue of "force 
majeure" 
II)"  to  make  clear  that  the  common 
understanding of all stakeholders was, until the CJEU ruling of 
26.09.2013, that the force majeure was indeed present in the 
Regulation  and  to  justify  the  re-introduction  of  a  "force 
majeure" clause under a new regulatory framework.  

(Part 

6. 

In  addition  to  the 

legal  The report has been re-drafted in order to document: 

91 

 
 
 
 
evidence,  the  report  needs  to 
document the existence and the 
magnitude of the problem under 
force 
different  definitions  of 
majeure.  

(1)  the  existence  of  a  problem  under  different  definitions  of 
force  majeure.  In  par.  1.3  "Description  of  the  main  problems 
linked to the issue of "force majeure" (Part II"), Table 1 shows 
the  different  possible  definitions  and  occurrence  of  a  force 
majeure event.  

(2)  the  magnitude  of  the  problem  under  different  definitions 
of force majeure. In par. 1.4.2 " Part II –problems linked to the 
issue of "force majeure", the two definitions more relevant to 
this  exercise  are  presented  and  analysed  showing  the 
magnitude of the problem. 

The report recognises that the scarce economic data available 
does  not  show  that  there 
is  a  significant  financial  or 
competition  problem  for  railway  undertakings.  It  therefore 
mainly  justifies  its  preoccupation  with  this  issue  by  the 
repeated  calls  from  Member  States  and  railway  undertakings 
to address the issue of "force majeure".    

In  section  5.4  Part  II  –  problems  linked  to  the  issue  of  "force 
majeure", the issue of "force majeure" is analysed as separate 
problem.  Two  different  policy  measures  are  proposed, 
described and analysed. 

In  section  5.4.3.2  Analysis  of  policy  scenarios  addressing  the 
problems  linked  to  "force  majeure",  the  two  policy  scenarios 
are analysed in order to show the effect on passengers and the 
economic  effect  on  railway  undertakings  under  the  different 
definitions.  

The  two  policy  measures  are  strongly  dependent  on  the 
likelihood of a "force majeure" event to happen: 

  17% likelihood of occurrence for the narrow definition 

of FM  

  41.4% likelihood of occurrence for the broad definition 

of FM 

The  impact  assessment  has  shown  that  there  is  a  limited 
competition  between  rail  and  other  transport  modes  notably 
in some routes.  

potential 

companies 

7.  The  report  should  provide 
quantitative  data  on  observed 
damage 
and 
compensation claims in cases of 
force  majeure.  It  should  show 
how this would ultimately affect 
rail 
rail 
passengers. 
includes 
presenting  and  analysing  data 
on the (likelihood of) occurrence 
of  force  majeure  events  and  on 
rail  sector  costs 
to 
events 
floods, 
earthquakes, etc. 

related 

such 

This 

and 

as 

8.  The  report  should  assess 
of 
whether 
competition with other modes of 
transportation is relevant.  

issue 

the 

9. 
It  should  clarify  different 
Member States' demand for the 
measure.  

A  paragraph  has  been  added  in  the  last  part  of  section  1.3 
Description of  the main problems linked to the issue of "force 
majeure"  (Part  II),  where  Member  States'  demand  for  re-

92 

 
 
 
 
 
 
introduction of a "force majeure" clause is clearly stated.   

10.  The  report  should  address 
the  feasibility  of  the  proposed 
definition, 
difficulties 
given 
encountered in air transport. 

In  section  1.3  Description  of  the  main  problems  linked  to  the 
issue  of  "force  majeure"  (Part  II),  the  experience  from  the  air 
passenger  rights  file  is  presented  in  order  to  support  the 
proposal of the Commission for a narrow and clear definition.  

As mentioned above, a restrictive and clear definition of "force 
majeure" will limit to a minimum legal disputes and thus costs 
linked to them..  

these 

11.  The  report  should  be  clear 
changes  affect 
how 
standards 
passenger 
of 
protection, which is the focus of 
Regulation 
The 
analysis  should  also  assess  the 
impact  on 
in 
particular  with  regard  to  legal 
disputes and their costs.  

legal  certainty, 

1371/2007. 

(2) Policy options and stakeholder views  

Under the new structure, various policy measures are assessed 
separately  and  analysed  against  the  baseline  scenario 
revealing  the  differences  with  the  baseline  (and  among  them 
where possible). 

information  on 
the 
and 

12. The report should give more 
detailed 
the 
content 
practical 
implementation  of  the  various 
policy  measures  and  better 
explain  the  differences  with  the 
(e.g.  what  are  the 
baseline 
rights  today,  under  EU  and 
national law)  

13. For PRM, it should clarify the 
concrete  measures  covered  in 
each policy option and how they 
for 
be 
will 
of 
example, 
"accessibility" 
the 
possibilities to improve it.  

implemented; 
the  meaning 

and 

impact).  Reference 

14.  The 
report  should  also 
discuss  various  possibilities  to 
define force majeure (and assess 
their 
to 
authoritative  definitions  of  the 
force  majeure  should  guide  the 
definitions  proposed.  The  report 
should  provide 
for 
choosing  a  particular  definition, 
information  on  the 
including 

reasons 

PRM issues and relevant policy options are better defined and 
analysed  under  a  separate  scheme.  Already  in  Figure  1: 
Problem  definition  diagram,  PRM  issues  are  distinguished. 
Further, in section 1.2.1.2 Problems linked to the protection of 
passengers with disabilities or reduced mobility, the problems 
related to PRMs are presented.   

The  various  definitions  of  force  majeure  are  now  explicitly 
presented.  Also  the  reasons  behind  these  definitions  are 
clearly  explained  and  motivated.  In  addition  Member  States' 
position  has  been  clarified  through  a  targeted  consultation 
which  confirmed  Member  States'  demand  for  the  re-
introduction  of  a  force  majeure  clause.  Other  stakeholders' 
opinions are given, experience by air passengers' right file has 
been taken into account.   

93 

 
 
 
 
The  effect  of  removing  exemptions  has  been  presented  in 
section  5.2.1.  The  effect  of  removing  exemptions  has  again 
been  assessed  against  the  options  for  all  other  measures.  A 
summary  table  has  been  added  in  Table  A12:  Exemptions, 
Annex 5 

The  construction  of  the  policy  options  has  been  completely 
revised  in  order  to  reflect  the  limited  links  and  relationships 
between them. The new methodology is presented in section 
4.1 Methodology of the policy options construction (PART I). 

It  is  important  to  highlight  that  the  high  number  of  issues 
under  consideration  in  this  report  entails  a  high  number  of 
policy  options.  Combining  the  various  policy  options  for  each 
of  the  issues  under  consideration  into  packages  of  policy 
options  would  lead  to  an  unmanageable  number  of  such 
packages to assess. Although the policy choice with regard to 
the  exemptions  may  have  an  impact  on  the  other  problems 
identified,  these  other  problems  are  not  or  are  only  weakly 
linked  to  each  other.  This  allowed  us  to  discard  a  highly 
complex approach in which we would design policy packages. 
Instead,  we  have  chosen  to  apply  a  sequential  approach  in 
which  we  assessed  theme  by  theme.  The  robustness  of  the 
conclusion  for  each  of  the  themes  was  every  time  tested 
against the different policy options for the exemptions. 

support by Member States.  

the 

It  should  more  clearly 
15. 
implications  of 
explain 
in 
removing 
member 
their 
implications of passenger rights. 
A  summary  table  would  be  a 
useful device for this purpose. 

exemptions 
and 

states 

16.  The  report  should  explain 
the underlying logic of the policy 
for 
options 
i.e.  the  reasons 
including  policy  measures 
in 
some options and not in others: 
they  currently  appear  to  be 
somewhat 
and 
cumulative.  

artificial 

should 

It 
explore  whether 
alternative  policy  options  or 
other  possible  combinations  of 
measures  would  merit  further 
consideration (e.g. for informing 
passengers about their rights; or 
for  "connections"  and  "through 
tickets").  For  example, 
the 
difference  between  options  3 
and  4  appears  rather  limited, 
and  the  report  should  make 
them  more 
The 
the  options 
presentation  of 
should  explain  the  choice  of  an 
all-or-nothing  approach  for  the 
exemptions.  The  report  should 
in  how  far  the 
demonstrate 
options  are  feasible,  given  the 
related  costs,  in  particular  for 
rail operators.  

evident. 

17.  The  report  should  more 
systematically  and  more  clearly 
present  stakeholders'  views  on 
the various policy options. 

The report has been redrafted to better present stakeholders' 
views on the main policy options.  

For  example,  as  already  highlighted 
in  point  9,  the 
presentation  of  demand  from  the  side  of  Member  States  for 
the  re-introduction  of  a  "force  majeure"  clause  has  been 
added  in  the  last  part  of  section  1.3  Description  of  the  main 

94 

 
 
 
problems linked to the issue of "force majeure" (Part II).  

In addition, EDF opinion has been added in relation to different 
issues  for    PRMs  in  section  1.2.1.2  Problems  linked  to  the 
protection  of  passengers  with  disabilities  or  reduced  mobility 
eg.  on  staff  training,  provisions  on  complaint  handling  for 
PRMs etc. 

(3) The impact analysis and option comparison  

18.  The  impact  analysis  should 
consistently  compare  the  policy 
options with the baseline. It also 
needs  to  clarify  (in  the  main 
text)  the  main  assumptions  and 
for 
underlying 
estimating 
(e.g.  do 
impacts 
force majeure estimates refer to 
an  average  or  a  worst-case 
scenario?).  

methods 

The  whole  section  of  impact  analysis  has  been  re-drafted  to 
become simpler and more transparent. The main assumptions 
and  underlying  methods  for  estimating  impacts  are  more 
straightforward.  

Every policy scenario is analysed in a separate section against 
the  baseline  and,  at  the  end,  the  policy  scenarios  under  the 
same issue are analysed in comparison to each other.   

to 

ratings 
It 

report  should  pay 
19.  The 
particular  attention 
the 
accuracy  and  clear  explanation 
calculations, 
cost 
of 
methodology, 
and 
comparison. 
should 
substantiate  the  conclusions  on 
impacts  with  evidence.  In  this 
light, it should clarify the choice 
of the preferred option. It should 
include  a  summary  table  on  the 
cost and benefits of the options.  

 (4) Monitoring 

20.  The  report  should  complete 
the  monitoring  and  evaluation 
arrangements.  It  should  define 
operational objectives for all the 
objectives  of  this  initiative.  In 
particular,  those  should  include 
indicators on costs and on force 
majeure  cases  to  monitor  the 
suitability  of 
the  preferred 
option.  The  report  needs  to  set 

Under  the  new  structure  of  the  report  and  the  separate 
analysis  of  each  policy  option,  particular  attention  has  been 
paid  to  the  accuracy  and  clear  explanation  of  the  cost 
calculations  and  comparisons.  In  the  analysis  of  every  policy 
measure,  a  table  has  been  added  with  the  results  of  the  tool 
presenting in numbers the anticipated economic impacts.  

In  addition,  in  Annex  4,  the  results  of  the  economic  analysis 
are presented in a print screen format taken directly from the 
excel file of the tool.   

Finally,  a  summary  Table  18  was  included  on  the  costs  and 
benefits of the main options that were economically analysed.   

The  last  part  of  the  report  "Monitoring  and  Evaluation"  has 
been  redrafted.  Table  21  has  been  completed  with  new 
operational objectives, and new KPIs have been added. 

95 

 
 
 
 
time-bound  targets  to  measure 
success  or 
the 
initiative.  

failure  of 

Evidence used in the impact assessment  

The  whole  report  and  the  options  considered  in  the  IA  report  were  designed  by  taking  into 
account the following documents and evidence:  

1.  Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 
October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations, OJ L 315, 3.12.2007, p. 14; 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32007R1371&from=EN 

2.  Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the 

Application of Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 23 October 2007 on Rail Passengers' Rights and Obligations, 
COM/2013/0587 final; http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52013DC0587&rid=1 

3.  Report of the study "Evaluation of Regulation 1371/2007" by Steer Davies Gleave on 

the application and enforcement in the Member States of the Regulation on rail 
passengers' rights and obligations; 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/passengers/studies/doc/2012-07-evaluation-
regulation-1371-2007.pdf 

4.  White Paper - Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a competitive 

and resource efficient transport system, COM/2011/144 final; http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0144&qid=1425911670667&from=
EN 

5.  Commission Staff Working Document: Continuity of passenger mobility following 

disruption of the transport system; SWD (2014)155 final, 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/passengers/doc/swd(2014)155.pdf 

6.  Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council: A 
European vision for Passengers: Communication on Passenger Rights in all transport 
modes, COM/2011/0898 final; http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0898&from=EN 

7.  Special Eurobarometer 420 of November 2014, 

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_420_en.pdf 

8.  Special Eurobarometer 228 February-March 2005, 

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_228_sum_en.pdf 

9.  Special Eurobarometer 319 November 2009 

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_317_en.pdf 

10. Flash Eurobarometer 382a December 2013 

96 

 
 
 
 
 
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_382a_en.pdf 

11. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the 

Exemptions granted by Member States under Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 on Rail 
Passengers' Rights and Obligations, COM/2015/117 final; 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/passengers/news/doc/2015-03-13-pax-rights-
rail-exemptions/com(2015)0117_en.pdf 

12. CER, rail sector's report on the implementation of Regulation 1371/2007 of October 

2012 
http://www.cer.be/fileadmin/user_upload/media/2358_FINAL_CER_Brochure_Pa
ssengersRR_DEF.pdf 

13. Interpretative guidelines on Regulation 1371/2007 of 3.7.2015, C(2015)4089 

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:C:2015:220:TOC. 

14. Open Public Consultation carried out between 9/2/2016 and 5/5/2016 in the 

framework of the impact assessment  

15. Case studies, targeted consultations and methodological tool prepared by an external 

contractor (Steer Davies Gleave)  

External expertise 

The  Commission  sought  external  expertise  in  the  economic  field  through  a  contract  for  a 
support study with Steer Davies Gleave. The quality of the contractor's work was substandard 
so that only the information provided in the case studies and targeted stakeholder consultation 
as well as the methodological tool for the IA could be used for the IA report.  

97 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEXE 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION SYNOPSIS REPORT 

Introduction 

In the context of the preparation of the Impact Assessment,  stakeholders were consulted 
on  the  problem  definition  and  respective  drivers,  the  issue  of  subsidiarity  and  the  EU 
dimension of the problem, the proposed options and the likely impacts of each option. Both 
qualitative  (opinions,  views,  suggestions)  and  quantitative  (data,  statistics)  information  was 
sought  from  stakeholders.  Stakeholders  were  engaged 
the  combination  of 
consultation methods to obtain input into the Impact Assessment, including a 12-week Open 
Public  Consultation  and  targeted  consultations  through  interviews  of  most  relevant 
stakeholders, carried out by the external consultant.  

through 

The  consultation 
representing  PRMs, 
organisations  representing  passengers  and  consumers,  infrastructure  managers,  public 
authorities, RUs, ticket vendors and others.  

federations,  organisations 

industry 

targeted 

The  participation  of  different  stakeholder  categories  was  overall  balanced  with  stakeholders 
from the industry and stakeholders representing passengers/consumers and PRMs as well as 
public authorities responding  to the consultation. This  included stakeholders affected by the 
policy, those who have to implement it and those with a stated interest in the policy.  

The  stakeholders'  views  do  not  represent  the  official  position  of  the  Commission  and  its 
services  and  thus  does  not  bind  the  Commission.  The  input  gathered  corresponds  to  the 
objective of the consultation in both assessing the performance of the regulatory framework to 
date and also providing insights about possible challenges. 

Methodology 

Open Public Consultation 

The Open Public Consultation (OPC) was conducted between 09 February and 05 May 2016 
on  the  ‘Your  voice  in  Europe’  website.  The  aim  of  the  OPC  was  to  obtain  stakeholders' 
opinions on the key elements of the impact assessment: the problem identified during the ex-
post  evaluation,  the  possible  solutions  to  these  problems  (i.e.  policy  options  and  policy 
measure)  and  their  likely  impacts.  While  the  questionnaire  for  the  12-week  public 
consultation was prepared by DG MOVE, together with the members of the steering group, 
the external consultant collected and summarised the submissions. The questionnaire had 31 
questions, divided in three parts. 

Figure 2 Overview of Participants to the OPC 

Industry 
Federations; 
6 

Infrastructure 
Managers; 1 

PRM 
Organisations
; 8 

Passenger/Co
nsumer 
Organisations
; 15 

Citizens; 127 

Other; 11 

Public 
Authorities; 
16 

Railway 
Undertakings
; 11 

Ticket 
Vendors; 1 

98 

The  consultation  gathered  a  total  of  190 
online replies, including 127 citizens and 63 
replies  from  stakeholders  operating  in  all 
Member  States.  The  division  by  different 
types 
citizens, 
Passenger/Consumer  Associations;  PRM 
Organisations;  Public  Authorities;  Industry 
Federations; 
Undertaking; 
Railway 
Infrastructure Managers; Ticket Vendor; and 

respondents 

(i.e. 

of 

 
 
 
respondents categorized as "Other") is reflected in 2 .  

For  some  stakeholder  categories,  such  as  ticket  vendors,  station  managers  and  industry 
federations, the sample size was low, with less than six respondents per category as seen in 
Figure  2.  However,  it  is  important  to  note  that  industry  federations  represent  a  number  of 
member  companies.    Other  stakeholder  categories,  such  as  passenger/consumer  associations 
(15  respondents),  public  authorities  (16  organisations)  and  railway  undertakings  (11 
respondents) were better represented in the OPC.  

Industry 
Federations; 
6 

Ticket 
Vendors; 1 

IM, 1 

PRM 
Org, 8 

RU, 11 

Public 
Authorities; 
16 

Industry Federations

Infrastructure
Managers

PRM Organisations

Passenger/Consumer
Organisations

Pass.Org 15 

Other

Other; 11 

Public Authorities

Railway
Undertakings

Ticket Vendors

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

19 

15 

9 

9 

6 

4 

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

m
u
i
g
l
e
B

1 

c
i
l
b
u
p
e
R
h
c
e
z
C

2 

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

1 

a
i
n
o
t
s
E

e
d
i
W
U
E

-

e
c
n
a
r
F

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

3 

y
l
a
t
I

2 

a
i
v
t
a
L

1 

d
n
a
l
e
r
I

2 

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

4 

3 

K
U

n
i
a
p
S

n
e
d
e
w
S

2 

d
n
a
l
o
P

1 

1 

a
i
n
a
m
o
R

a
i
n
e
v
o
l
S

4 

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

Figure 3 Organisations according to best describing activity (left) and main country of 
operations (right) as declared by participants 

Targeted consultations 

Targeted consultations took place in the frame of the external study performed by the external 
consultant. These were done through a series of face-to-face (or phone) interviews. Interview 
guides, tailored to the different stakeholder groups, were prepared by the external consultants. 
26  Member  States  were  divided  into  two  main  categories,  those  in  which  a  full  case  study 
approach was taken and those on which overview case studies were carried out.  

to 

the  Regulation;  National  Enforcement  Bodies, 

The question lists  used for the case studies were agreed with the Commission.  Five  distinct 
questionnaires were prepared for Railway undertakings, including specific financial questions 
pertinent 
including  a  complete 
understanding of their position with regards to the Regulation; Infrastructure managers/station 
managers,  including  specific  financial  questions  pertinent  to  the  Regulation;  Railway 
undertaking  associations,  with  a  broader  approach  to  financial  queries;  and,  Consumer 
associations and PRM organisations, with a focus on provision of information and assistance. 

The final case study reports are also based upon desk research and stakeholder questionnaires, 
and  represent  the  findings  with  relation  to  rail  passengers’  rights  and  obligations.  The 
structure of the case study reports is identical for both full and overview case study countries 
and was agreed by the Commission. 

99 

 
 
 
 
 
The full case studies provided  an in depth understanding of the situation in thirteen Member 
States156,  with  a  broad  range  of  stakeholders  being  interviewed,  including  face-to-face 
interviews  with  National  Enforcement  Bodies  and  railway  undertaking  and  telephone 
interviews with  railway undertaking associations, infrastructure managers, station managers, 
consumer  associations  and  PRM  organisations  in  these  member  states  via  telephone 
interview.  

In  the  course  of  the  full  case  studies,  74  stakeholders  were  contacted,  whereby  44 
stakeholders  were  interviewed  (60%  response  rate)  and  6  declined  to  participate  (most  of 
them  consumer/passengers  or  PRM  organisations).  Additionally,  39  stakeholder  written 
submissions were received.  
In  the  thirteen157  "overview"  case  study  states,  telephone  interviews  with  National 
Enforcement  Bodies  and  railway  undertakings  were  held  mainly  for  the  purpose  of  data 
collection, which allowed for confirming the nature of problems identified in our case study 
work. 29 stakeholders were consulted for the overview case studies 

Feedback on the Inception Impact Assessment 

The  Inception  Impact  Assessment  was  published  on  the  Europa  webpage  and  thus  open  for 
the feedback of stakeholder. On 17 January 2016 Verkehrsclub Deutschland, Landesverband 
Bayern e. V. (VCD Bayern) submitted its feedback on the initiative.   

Analysis of Results of the Stakeholder Consultation (OPC and Targeted Consulation) 

1  Awareness and information about passenger rights. 

Passenger/consumer associations 

The  European  Disability  Forum  (EDF)  and  the  passenger  and  consumer  association  in  The 
Netherlands (ROVER) expressed the view that passengers are not very aware of their rights 
and  the  relationship  between  the  Regulation  and  the  CIV  is  unclear.  This  opinion  was  also 
shared by passenger and consumer associations in the OPC, where 13 (87%) of passenger and 
consumer associations did  not  feel well informed about their rights (strongly  and  somewhat 
disagreed  with  the  statement  in  Question  2).  Further,  more  respondents  (9,  or  60%  of 
passenger and consumer associations) disagreed (either strongly or somewhat) that passengers 
were well informed about disruptions. 

PRM Organisations 

In the OPC, Questions 1, 2 and 3 asked the respondents their opinion on how well informed 
passengers are about various aspects of the Regulation, including transparency of information, 
provisions of the Regulation and whether the Regulation has improved the protection of rail 
passenger  rights.  Although  PRM  organisations  were  familiar  with  provisions  of  the 
Regulation (5, or 71%), they did not feel particularly well informed about their rights (5, or 
63%) (strongly and somewhat disagree). In addition, results from Question 31a and 31b in the 
OPC suggested 4 (50%) of PRM organisations favoured a revision of the Regulation at EU 

156   The full case studies were carried out in the following Member States: Austria; Belgium; Bulgaria; Finland; France; Germany; Italy; 

Latvia; Lithuania; The Netherlands; Poland; Romania; and UK. 

157   Croatia; Czech Republic; Denmark; Estonia; Greece;  Hungary; Ireland; Luxembourg; Portugal; Slovakia; Slovenia; Spain; Sweden 

100 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
level (through new national legislation) to address information provided to passengers. It was 
also suggested by 5 (63%) of PRM organisations that new national legislation is required to 
address the liability of railway undertakings  to compensate passengers for delays caused  by 
unforeseen and unavoidable events (force majeure). 

Railway Undertakings 

Railway undertakings in the OPC agreed that passengers are well informed about disruptions 
and  other  aspects  of  their  journey.  In  detail,  10  (91%)  of  railway  undertakings  “somewhat 
agree” or “fully agree” with the statement  that passengers are well informed in the event of 
disruptions  (such  as  long  delays,  cancellations).  The  railway  undertakings  that  agreed  with 
this  statement  were  from  western  European  Member  States,  with  the  exception  of  PKP 
Intercity S.A. in Poland. As Respondents in Latvia, Ireland also stated that passengers are not 
much  aware  of  their  rights.  In  contrast,  the  Finish  RU  and  the  German  RU  stated  that 
passengers are quite aware of their rights. 

Public Authorities 

Responses  to  the  open  public  consultation  are  in  line  with  the  targeted  consultations.  (RU), 
Hungary  (NEB),  Ireland  (NEB),  Luxembourg  (NEB)  and  the  Finnish  NEBs  stated  that 
passengers  are  not  very  much  aware  of  the  Regulation.  For  instance,  Hungarian  NEB 
expressed that passengers are often not aware of the rules of compensation for delay; and the 
rules of reimbursement of unused tickets. Moreover, they do not receive enough information 
during the journey.  

On  the  other  hand  only  the  German  and  the  Swedish  NEB  stated  that  passengers  are  quite 
aware of the main principles of the Regulation.  

2  Exemptions 

Passenger/Consumer Organisations 

Passengers and consumer associations also mostly agreed that exemptions should be limited 
in time and removed for both the part carried out on EU territory and for urban, suburban and 
regional  services.  In  detail,  7,  or  47%  of  passenger  and  consumer  associations,  thought 
services should be removed for the part carried out on EU territory. 

PRM Organisations 

PRM organisations in the targeted consultation advocate for a removal of the exemptions to 
the Regulation. In the OPC, questions 7a, 7b and 8 examined exemptions given to domestic 
long distance services, services for which a significant proportion is operated outside of the 
EU,  and  urban,  suburban  and  regional  services.  PRM  organisations  either  expressed  no 
opinion  or  agreed  that  exemptions  should  be  limited  in  time  and  removed  for  both  the  part 
carried out on EU territory and for urban, suburban and regional services. In detail 3, or 38% 
of PRM organisations selected “fully agree” and thought services should be removed for the 
part carried out on EU territory, and 4 (50%) selected “no opinion/not sure”. AGE Platform 
Europe  (EU-wide)  fully  agreed  that  exemptions  should  be  limited  in  time  and  scope,  and 
suggested the exemptions do not allow passengers to travel easily considering there may be 
different rules for each network and types of network. Seamless travel is essential for PRMs 
and from a PRM passenger's perspective, all urban, suburban and regional services have to be 
accessible to enable travel. 

Industry Federations 

101 

 
 
 
Industry  federations  from  the  targeted  consultation  favoured  exemptions  and  support  the 
flexibility  offered  by  them.  Industry  federations  suggested  that  exemptions  allow  public 
authorities  to  define  services  and  impose  public  service  obligations  on  operators  within  the 
framework of the local transport policy. This is similar to the key findings of the OPC, where 
industry  federations  disagreed  that  the  current  exemptions  should  be  limited  in  time  and 
removed for the part carried out on EU territory, and expressed a preference for maintaining 
exemptions  for  urban,  suburban  and  regional  services.  In  detail,  4  (67%)  of  industry 
federations thought the current exemptions for long distance national services should stay the 
same.  Similarly,  5  (83%)  industry  federations  also  suggested  that  a  phasing  out  and/or 
removal  of  exemptions  would  significantly  increase  the  economic  burden  on  railway 
undertakings (Question 10).  

Railway Undertakings 

The  subject  of  exemptions  was  addressed  in  the  OPC.  Railway  undertakings  (and  other 
industry respondents, such as industry federations and infrastructure managers) disagreed that 
the current exemptions should be limited in time and removed for the part carried out on EU 
territory.  6  (55%)  of  railway  undertakings  also  thought  the  current  exemptions  for  long 
distance  national  services  should  stay  the  same.  In  the  targeted  consultation,  railway 
undertakings in Finland, Latvia and Lithuania expressed strong resistance to any proposal to 
remove  the  possibility  to  exempt  services  that  have  a  significant  portion  outside  of  the  EU. 
These  member  states  have  such  services,  between  Finland  and  Russia,  and  between  Latvia/ 
Lithuania and Russia/Belarus.  

In  the  OPC,  8  (73%)  of  operators  thought  the  phasing  out  and/or  removal  of  exemptions 
would  increase  the  economic  burden  on  railway  undertakings  (responses  were  “Yes, 
significantly”  and  “Yes,  to  a  limited  extent”).  Comments  from  railway  undertakings  which 
thought  this  would  significantly  increase  the  economic  burden  on  railway  undertakings 
suggested  that  each  additional  charge  puts  more  stress  on  the  system  and  can  lead  to  the 
closure  of  lines  and  services  (NMBS/SNCB,  Belgium).  NS  Reizigers  BV  (Germany,  The 
Netherlands and the UK) noted that public authorities play a key role in organising suburban 
transport services, as they have a good understanding of the needs of the regional and local 
population.  Further,  public  authorities  play  a  key  role  in  determining  the  level  of  financing 
and quality requirements, which greatly differ across Europe. In this context, many Member 
States  still  under-compensate  the  public  service  operations  they  require.  The  financial 
pressure created by the economic crisis has further reduced the available resources of public 
budgets. If the Regulation was applied in its entirety to this kind of services, operators would 
face increasing costs.    

Ticket Vendors 

Overall,  Trainline  considers  the  impact  of  the  Regulation  to  be  low,  given  the  wide 
exemptions  and  the  high  uptake  by  Member  States  in  applying  the  exemptions.  In  order  to 
support  the  growth  of  rail  travel  and  to  achieve  the  single  European  rail  area  (SERA), 
passenger  rights  and  associated  protection  schemes  should  be  made  more  consistent  across 
Member States. 

3  Force Majeure 

PRM Organisations 

102 

 
 
 
It  was  also  suggested  by  5  (63%)  of  PRM  organisations  that  new  national  legislation  is 
required to address the liability of railway undertakings to compensate passengers for delays 
caused by unforeseen and unavoidable events (force majeure). 

Industry Federations 

Industry  federations  in  the  targeted  consultation  expressed  the  view  that  a  force  majeure 
clause should be included, bringing rail into line with other transport modes, to ensure legal 
clarity and consistency for both passengers and carriers. Within the OPC, force majeure was 
addressed  in  Question  18,  and  respondents  were  asked  if  they  considered  that  railway 
undertakings should have to pay compensation to passengers even in cases where delays were 
caused by events beyond the control of railway undertakings and which they were not able to 
prevent.  Rail  industry  respondents  believed  that  rail  undertakings  should  not  have  to  pay 
compensation in these cases (for example 6, or 100% of industry federations and 11, or 100% 
of railway undertakings).  

Railway Undertakings 

Force  majeure  was  considered  in  Question  18  and  11  (100%)  of  Railway  Undertakings 
responded  “No,  railway  undertakings  should  not  have  to  pay  compensation  in  cases  where 
delays were caused by events beyond their control and which they were not able to prevent”. 
6 (100%) of industry federations also shared this view. RUs in some MS such as in Belgium, 
France, Germany, Czech Republic, Spain, Sweden, Finland and Lithuania were of the opinion 
that the current obligation regarding force majeure is inequitable compared with other modes. 

Infrastructure Manager 

In  several  Member  States,  such  as  Latvia  and  Lithuania,  the  infrastructure  manager  has 
agreements  in  place  regarding  contingency  planning.  In  the  OPC  (Question  15)  the 
infrastructure  manager  (1,  100%)  thought  the  Commission  should  develop  guidelines  on 
contingency planning for rail transport operators in case of major rail transport disruption. 

In Romania, the targeted consultation revealed the current interpretation of force majeure also 
conflicts  with  the  actual  definition  of  such  situations  in  the  Standard  Access  Contract  that 
operators sign with the infrastructure manager. Clarification is required regarding this.  

Public Authorities 

Respondents  from  several  MS  –largely  NEBs-  disagreed  and  find  that  the  introduction  of  a 
force  majeure  clause  is  not  convenient,  in  line  with  the  predominant  opinion  of  citizen 
respondents and passenger/consumers and PRM associations in the OPC. 

4  Assistance to PRMs 

PRM Organisations 

PRM  organisations  in  the  targeted  consultation  expressed  the  view  that  persons  with 
disabilities  and  reduced  mobility  are  often  unaware  of  their  rights,  there  is  insufficient 
provision  of  information,  and  rights  for  PRMs  within  the  Regulation  are  outdated.  This 
opinion  was  also  shared  by  passenger  and  consumer  associations.  Indirect  price 
discrimination  with  regards  to  discounts  offered  to  disabled  persons  and  PRMs  was  also 
identified as a key problem in the targeted consultation. Other problems relate to individual 
enforcement, especially PRM accessibility, and these should be addressed in the revision of 
the Regulation.  

103 

 
 
 
PRM  accessibility  was  also  identified  as  a  key  issue  by  PRM  organisations  in  the  targeted 
consultation.  In  many  cases,  disabled  passengers  and  PRMs  experience  discrimination 
through the lack of accessibility and rolling stock and infrastructure remain inaccessible in a 
number  of  countries.  PRM  organisations  also  suggested  that  booking  PRM  assistance  by 
phone is often charged to the passenger, exceeding the cost of a call from a regular land line 
phone and in some cases assistance can be refused at a later date, or is not available during all 
operating  hours.  In  the  OPC,  Questions  22  and  23  assessed  the  level  of  services  offered  to 
persons with disabilities or with reduced mobility when travelling, including the accessibility 
of stations, platforms, rolling stock and other facilities, assistance and financial compensation 
in case of loss or damage to mobility equipment. Half of the PRM organisations questioned 
(from  Spain,  Belgium,  Germany  and  EU-wide)  considered  assistance  to  be  “bad”  (4,  50%) 
and  all  PRM  organisations  (8,  100%)  suggested  assistance  provided  to  persons  with 
disabilities or with reduced mobility at stations, including to embark and disembark, needs to 
be reinforced. The geographical distribution of PRM organisations in the OPC was limited to 
western  European  Member  States:  The  Netherlands,  Spain,  France,  Belgium  and  Germany, 
with 4 organisations also selecting EU-wide.  

PRM  organisations  also  identified  large  variations  in  the  provision  of  PRM  staff  training 
across  Member  States  in  the  targeted  consultation.  There  is  currently  no  specified  level  of 
training  that  must  be  provided  to  staff  with  regards  to  accessibility  of  services  for  disabled 
persons and PRMs. In Italy, Anglat expressed the view that the Regulation should include an 
article on ‘staff training’, to oblige IMs and RUs to provide the staff that interfaces or provide 
assistance  to  PRM  with  proper  training,  in  collaboration  with  the  national  associations  of 
PRMs.  Responses  from  PRM  organisations  in  Question  24  (7,  or  88%  responded  “yes”) 
further suggest there is a need to enshrine provisions for minimum compulsory awareness and 
assistance training for staff in the legal framework. 

Infrastructure Managers 

Assistance  provided  to  PRMs  is  perceived  by  infrastructure  managers  to  be  improving, 
however  in  some  cases  (such  as  in  Italy),  a  more  equitable  division  of  costs  between  the 
infrastructure manager and the railway undertaking is required. 

Railway Undertakings 

Among  the  targeted  consultation  respondents,  the  main  issues  regarding  PRMs  seem  to  be 
related  with  definitions  (as  expressed  by  RUs  SCNF  and  SCNB)  as  inconcistencies  in  the 
definitions may lead to a situation described by the Finnish and the French RU regarding the 
misuse of services offered to PRM as "free portering". 

5  Tasks of the NEBs and Enforcement 

Passengers/Consumer Associations 

In  the OPC (Question 12)  focused on the complaint handling process and respondents were 
asked whether actors other than railway undertakings (e.g. station managers) should also have 
a  role  in  dealing  with  complaint  handling.  Citizens  (55%)  and  passenger  and  consumer 
associations  (47%)  answered  more  affirmatively  to  the  question  than  rail  industry 
respondents. 

104 

 
 
 
PRM organisations 

The majority of PRM organisations contacted in the targeted consultation expressed the view 
that  the  provision  of  complaint  handling  mechanism  information  is  inadequate  and  there 
should be provisions within the complaints process for different channels of communication. 
Further, there should be no time limit for complaints. 

Public Authorities   

Question  11  in  the  OPC  investigated  the  role  and  tasks  of  NEBs.  10  (63%)  of  Public 
Authorities  (defined  here  as  either  a  Member  State  representative,  Ministry,  Agency  or 
National Enforcement Body) either “somewhat agree” or “fully agree” that the role and tasks 
of  the  NEB  is  clear  and  3  (19%)  from  Austria,  Belgium  and  Sweden  responded  that  they 
“Somewhat disagree” with this statement. Slightly more respondents (6, or 38%) stated that 
they either “somewhat agree” or “fully agree” with the following statement: The role of the 
NEBs  needs  to  be  strengthened  through  new  obligations  (such  as  reporting,  deadlines  for 
complaint  handling).  5  (31%)  of  respondents  either  “strongly  disagree”  or  “somewhat 
disagree” with this statement. The geographical distribution of Public Authority respondents 
was spread across Member States.   

Industry federations 

As  part  of  the  targeted  consultation,  industry  federations  from  Austria  (WKO)  and  France 
(UTP) expressed the view that a deadline of 3 months for complaints would be appropriate. 
Proposed  revisions  to  the  Regulation  include  a  provision  that  requires  NEBs  to  respond  to 
passenger complaints within a set time period and passengers to first submit complaints to the 
operator.  Industry federation respondents agreed that the role and tasks of NEBs is clear (5, 
83%). Additionally, 4 (67%) of industry federation respondents disagreed with the proposition 
that the role of the NEBs needs to be strengthened through new obligations (4, 67%).  

Infrastructure managers 

The  targeted  stakeholder  consultation  revealed  a  preference  for  a  time  limit  to  submit 
complaints, with three months being the most regularly suggested limit. In the OPC, only one 
infrastructure manager took part in the consultation. Results from Question 12, which focused 
on  the  complaint  handling  process,  revealed  the  infrastructure  manager  (1,  100%)  did  not 
think  actors  other  than  railway  undertakings  should  have  a  role  in  dealing  with  complaint 
handling.  

6  Definitions and other issues 

Passenger and Consumer Associations 

Passenger  and  consumer  association  feedback  from  the  targeted  consultation  from  Italy 
(Altroconsumo)  suggests  clarification  is  required  regarding  through  tickets.  Currently,  the 
Regulation  does  not  specify  that  multiple  connecting  tickets  for  one  journey  should  be  one 
through  ticket  or  one  contract  of  carriage.  In  the  OPC,  Question  28  asked  respondents  to 
consider  whether  the  concept  of  through  tickets  in  the  Regulation  is  unclear/missing/or 
involved.  9  (60%)  of 
to 
obsolete  which  might  cause  problems 
passenger/consumer associations stated that the concept of through tickets was unclear, partly 
obsolete or partly missing. 

the  stakeholders 

Industry Federations 

105 

 
 
 
In  terms  of  through  tickets,  industry  federations  in  the  targeted  consultation  expressed  the 
view  that  the  recent  European  Commission’s  Interpretative  Guidelines  on  the  Regulation 
sufficiently clarify the term. ATOC (UK) also stated that if passengers book separate legs as 
separate  journeys  in  order  to  pay  a  lower  fare  (rather  than  purchase  a  through  ticket)  it  is 
reasonable  for  operators  not  to  pay  compensation.  Within  the  OPC,  3  (50%)  of  industry 
federations  considered  the  concept  of  through  tickets  in  the  Regulation  to  be  clear  in  the 
context of assistance and compensation.   

Railway Undertakings 

Question 28 in the OPC asked respondents to consider whether certain terms or rules in the 
Regulation  are  unclear/missing/or  obsolete  which  might  cause  problems  to  the  stakeholders 
involved. Responses from RUs suggest the notions of “carrier” and “missed connection” are 
unclear (8, or 73% responded that “yes, this is (partly) missing” and “yes, this is unclear”). In 
contrast, 7 (64%) of railway undertakings responded “no” to the statement and considered the 
notion of “through tickets” to be clear.    

Similarly, in Belgium, SNCB expressed the concern that if the requirements related to through 
tickets are tightened too much, there is a risk that operators will reduce the offer available to 
customers  because  this  is  a  commercial  product  and  there  are  severe  commercial  pressures 
upon operators.  

Further, respondents were asked whether the concept of "carrier" was unclear. the majority of 
citizens have no opinion on whether certain terms or rules in the Regulation are unclear in the 
Regulation which might cause problems to the stakeholders involved in relation to the notion 
of “carrier”. Amongst citizens, 31 (15%) think that the concept of carrier is unclear, 17 (13%) 
responded that there was no problem, and 82 (63%) did not have an opinion. The majority of 
railway undertakings responded that the notion of “carrier” in the regulation was unclear (8, 
or 73%). Accordingly, SCNF responded that the definition of “carrier” is inconsistent in the 
Regulation and in the CIV rules to which the Regulation refers to. The Regulation never uses 
the term “carrier” (apart in the definition in Art. 3) and puts all the obligations on the “railway 
undertaking”.  The  CIV  nearly  ignores  the  term  “undertaking”  and  only  focuses  on  the  term 
“carrier”, which may include domestic bus operators or international maritime companies in 
the chain of carriage. 

In  this  same  line,  the  Lithuanian  RU,  LG  concluded  that  the  unclear  link  between  the 
Regulation and the CIV Uniform Rules (CIV UR) in Annex I constitutes a negative aspect of 
the Regulation and raises problems in the practical implementation of the Regulation. 

Public Authorities 

For  instance,  the  Belgian  NEB  stated  that  the  2015  Interpretative  Guideline  from  the 
Commission has made the obligation to offer through ticket less clear: a through journey can 
be segmented into multiple contracts. In this line, the Italian NEB ART wishes for a review of 
the  Regulation  that  specifies  the  rules  on  through  tickets  which  are  unclear.  The  Austrian 
NEB  indicated  that  the  coming  into  force  of  the  Regulation  had  a  negative  impact  on  the 
availability of through tickets and suggested that railway undertakings are more reluctant to 
offer  through  tickets  which  enable  them  to  dis-apply  the  provisions  of  the  Regulation  for 
international services. 

Industry Federations  

106 

 
 
 
In  the  UK,ATOC  note  that,  in  the  UK,  many  passengers  create  ‘virtual’  through  tickets  by 
booking  separate  legs  as  separate  journeys  –  a  practice  referred  to  in  the  UK  as  ‘split 
ticketing’.  In  all  cases,  a  through  ticket  would  be  available  for  such  journeys  with  the  full 
protection of compensation for delays to end to end journeys. ATOC note that if passengers 
engage in ‘split ticketing’ in order to pay a lower fare, it is reasonable for operators to treat 
their  journeys  as  separate  journeys,  and  not  to  pay  compensation  as  if  the  journey  is  being 
taken on a through ticket.  

7  Contingency Planning 

PRM Organisation 

Question  13  in  the  OPC  considered  whether  passengers  in  all  EU  countries  are  sufficiently 
protected and assisted in case of major disruptions. Some PRM organisations (3, 38%) from 
France,  Belgium  and  EU-wide  believed  that  passengers  are  not  protected  in  the  EU  (and 
selected  “no,  nowhere”).  In  contrast,  1  (13%)  EU-wide  organisation  selected  “yes,  in  some 
EU  countries”  and  2  (25%)  organisations  from  Spain  selected  “yes,  in  my  country”.  It  is 
important  to  note  that  the  PRM  Organisations  that  responded  to  the  OPC  represent  western 
European Member States and the stakeholders have a split opinion on whether passengers are 
sufficiently protected by the Regulation.   

 Industry Federations 

ATOC  (UK)  expressed  the  view  that  legislation  in  the  area  of  contingency  planning  could 
create a lack of flexibility and prevent the industry from being as responsive as it needs to be. 
This is similar to the key findings of the OPC (Question 15) where responses from industry 
federations  (5,  or  83%)  were  strongly  opposed  to  including  contingency  planning  in  the 
framework of rail passenger rights.   

Railway Undertakings 

9, or 82% of Railway Undertakings responded to Question 15 in the OPC “No, a requirement 
for contingency planning should not be part of the framework”. This suggests the majority of 
rail transport operators do not think there should be a requirement for contingency planning 
for operators in the case of major rail transport disruption. The comments from the Railway 
Undertakings indicated a preference for Member States coordinating the different contingency 
plans on a national level and as such, there is no requirement to include this in the Regulation 
(NMBS/SNCB, Belgium). Eurostar considers there is no need for a regulatory framework for 
contingency  planning  as  contingency  scenarios  are  already  in  place  and  these  are  regularly 
tested with partners, and regular progress has been made in terms of their processes and the 
training  of  staff.  The  railway  undertakings  that  participated  in  the  OPC  were  mostly  from 
western European Member States, with the exception of MÁV (Hungary) and (PKP Intercity 
S.A.) Poland. In addition to contingency planning, force majeure was considered in Question 
18 and 11 (100%) of Railway Undertakings responded “No, railway undertakings should not 
have to pay compensation in cases where delays were caused by events beyond their control 
and which they were not able to prevent”. 6 (100%) of industry federations also shared this 
view. 

Infrastructure Managers 

In  several  Member  States,  such  as  Latvia  and  Lithuania,  the  infrastructure  manager  has 
agreements  in  place  regarding  contingency  planning.  In  the  OPC  (Question  15)  the 

107 

 
 
 
infrastructure  manager  (1,  100%)  thought  the  Commission  should  develop  guidelines  on 
contingency planning for rail transport operators in case of major rail transport disruption. 

Analysis of Results of the Stakeholder Feedback 

Feedback  on  the  Inception  Impact  Assessment  from  a  nongovernmental  organisation  in 
Germany  the  Verkehrsclub  Deutschland,  Landesverband  Bayern  e.  V.  (VCD  Bayern)  was 
received  on  the  17  of  January.  The  organisation  represents  their  members'  interests  in 
questions related to Transport Policy. The feedback was received during initial phase of the 
impact assessment, which allowed the Commission taking it into the consideration. 

The feedback referred to three main points: lack of transparency for citizens travelling across 
the EU on their legal rights as a result from the disparate application of Exemptions among 
member states; the current unequal treatment of Rail in relation to other modes of transport in 
the application of passenger rights, which is not acceptable in the interests of equal treatment 
and distorts competition; PRM an urgent need to strengthen access to public transport. On the 
basis of these comments, the VCD Bayern expressed their agreement with the Option number 
4, seeing that it would strengthen the rights of the passengers, including better protection for 
PRMs, the elimination of exemptions, improvement of information for passengers about their 
rights, strengthening of the NEBs enforcement capabilities. Moreover, as a sort of balance to 
the strengthened passenger rights, the VCD Bayern proposes that the introduction of the Force 
Majeure  clause  would  "even  out"  the  burden  on  the  industry  sector  and  respond  to  the 
principle of equality from the transport companies point of view, it is understandable that they 
are not obliged to pay in cases where they are not responsible for accidents adverse weather 
conditions. Also, for the sake of clarity, they deem necessary that the term Force Majeure be 
defined more accurately. 

108 

 
 
 
Appendix 1 Results of the Open Public Consultation 

Industry  stakeholders  (such  as  railway  undertakings,  industry  federations  and  infrastructure 
managers) indicated a preference for maintaining the current Regulation or easing the burden 
on  railway  undertakings,  whereas  stakeholders  representing  rail  passengers  (such  as  PRM 
organisations and passenger and consumer associations) indicated a preference for increased 
protection for consumers and removal of exemptions.  

1  Awareness and information about passenger rights 

Regarding  the  question,  whether  passengers  are  familiar  with  the  provisions  of  the 
Regulation.  The  responses  to  the  OPC  show  that,  amongst  citizens,  there  is  a  split  opinion 
with  60  (47%)  responding  that  they  were  familiar  with  the  Regulation,  and  66  (52%) 
responding  that  they  were  not  familiar  with  the  Regulation.  Amongst  PRM  organisations, 
although there is only a small response sample, 5 (71%) were familiar with the regulation and 
1 respondent (14%) was not familiar. The responses from the other organisations suggest the 
provisions of the regulation are well known. In particular, all of the industry federations (6), 
public  authorities  (16),  railway  undertakings  (11),  infrastructure  managers  (1)  and  ticket 
vendors (1) who responded were either well or very well familiar with the provisions of the 
Regulation. 14 (93%) of passenger/ consumer organisations were familiar with the Regulation 

When asked about transparency of information of ticket prices responses show that amongst 
citizens  there  is  a  roughly  even  split  opinion  with  60  (46%)  respondents  agreeing  that  they 
receive correct, complete and transparent information about the full ticket price in the event of 
delays  and  cancellations,  compared  to  56  (43%)  disagreeing.  Among  passenger/consumer 
associations,  8  (53%)  stakeholders  agreed;  however,  amongst  railway  undertakings  and 
infrastructure  managers,  all  respondents  either  fully  or  somewhat  agreed  that  passengers 
receive  transparent  information  about  ticket  prices.  Regarding  passengers’  awareness  of 
details  of  the  journey  (schedule,  on-board  facilities  including  for  disabled  passengers) 
regarding assistance in the event of delays and cancellations.  64% of citizens, totalling 83m 
agree either fully or somewhat with the assertion that passengers are aware of journey details 
and  on-board  facilities  in  the  event  of  delays  and  cancellations.  Similarly,  11  (73%)  of 
passenger/consumer associations agree that passengers are aware of journey details. For PRM 
organisations, although there are very few of these respondents, there is an even split opinion 
where  3  (38%)  respondents  agree  and  3  (38%)  respondents  disagree  with  the  assertion  that 
passengers are aware of journey details in the event of delays and cancellations.   

About whether passengers are well informed in the event of disruptions (such as long delays 
and cancellations), amongst citizens, more respondents (76, or 58%) disagree (either strongly 
or  somewhat)  that  passengers  are  well  informed  about  disruptions  than  agree  (34,  or  26%). 
This  is  similar  for  PRM  organisations,  where  more  respondents  (6,  or  74%)  disagree  than 
agree (1, or 13%). However, amongst railway undertakings 10 (91%) of respondents agreed 
that passengers are well informed in the event of disruptions, with the remaining respondent 
(9%) having no opinion.      

When  asked  whether  passengers  received  adequate  assistance  in  the  event  of  disruptions, 
amongst  citizens,  71  (55%)  disagree  (either  somewhat  or  strongly)  with  the  assertion  that 
passengers receive assistance in the event of disruptions, compared to 27 (21%) who agreed 
passengers  received  adequate  assistance.  Similarly,  PRM  organisations  (4,  or  50%)  also 
disagree with the assertion that passengers receive assistance in the event of disruptions. The 

109 

 
 
 
majority  of  other  organisation,  such  as  railway  undertakings  and  infrastructure  managers 
agree that passengers receive adequate assistance in the event of disruptions. 

On  the  question  whether  passengers  with  a  travel  pass  or  season  ticket  are  adequately 
compensated when they encounter recurrent delays or cancellations. The responses show that, 
amongst  citizens  and  consumer  associations,  more  respondents  (70,  or  54%  and  7,  or  47% 
respectively) disagreed with the assertion that passengers with a travel pass or season ticket 
received adequate compensation. Responses from other organisations suggest there is a range 
of opinions, with several respondents having no opinion.   

Finally, when asked whether passengers were well informed about where they can complain if 
their rights are not respected, and also in case of cross-border journeys. The responses to the 
open consultation show that, amongst citizens, more respondents disagreed with the assertion 
that passengers were well informed about where they can complain (73, or 56%). Consumer 
associations  (11,  or  73%)  and  PRM  organisations  (6,  75%)  were  also  of  a  similar  opinion. 
Industry federations and railway operators mostly agreed that passengers were well informed 
about where they can complain.   

2 

Impact of the current Regulation 

The OPC asked respondents whether they thought the Regulation had improved the protection 
of  rail  passengers.    For  all  organisations,  the  majority  of  respondents  agreed,  either 
substantially  or  to  a  limited  extent,  that  the  Regulation  had  improved  the  protection  of  rail 
passengers. Amongst citizens, most respondents (92, or 71%) agreed the Regulation improved 
protection, with only 19 (15%) disagreeing and 19 (15%) having no opinion.    

When  asked  what  the  impact  of  the  Regulation  was  on  information  provided  by  railway 
companies or their agents to passengers, responses show that for railway undertakings (8, or 
73%) and public authorities (16, or 75%) the Regulation has had a high or very high impact. 
Amongst citizens, there is split opinion with 46 (35%) responding that the Regulation has had 
a high or very high impact, and 42 (32%) that is has had a low or very low impact. 

On  the  question  what  the  impact  of  the  Regulation  was  on  the  conclusion  of  transport 
contracts,  amongst citizens there is a split opinion, with nearly as many respondents (21%, or 
27)  thinking  the  Regulation  had  a  high  or  very  high  impact  on  the  conclusion  of  transport 
contracts as 29 thought it had had a low or very low impact (22%). The majority of railway 
undertakings  8  (73%)  thought  the  Regulation  had  a  high  or  very  high  impact  on  the 
conclusion of transport contracts. 

Regarding the impact of the Regulation on ticketing, in terms of availability, choice and sales 
channels, responses show a mixed response amongst organisations. Amongst citizens, nearly 
as  many  respondents  31  (24%)  thought  the  Regulation  had  a  high  or  very  high  impact  on 
ticket availability, choice and sales channel as 43 thought it had had a low or very low impact 
(33%). PRM organisation (5, or 63%) and railway undertakings (7 or 64%) mostly agreed that 
the Regulation had a high or very high impact on ticketing. 

When asked what the impact of the Regulation was on liability of railway undertakings in the 
event  of  accidents  and  their  obligations  towards  passengers  and  their  luggage.  These 
responses show a mixed response amongst citizens, where 45 (35%) thought the Regulation 
had a high or very high impact, while 33 (25%) thought it had had a low or very low impact 
and  40%  thought  it  had  no  impact  or  had  no  opinion.  Conversely,  8  (73%)  railway 
undertakings thought the Regulation had a high or very high impact.  

110 

 
 
 
On  the  question  about  the  impact  of  the  Regulation  was  on  the  obligations  of  railway 
undertakings  to  passengers  in  the  event  of  delays,  cancellations  or  missed  connections  (in 
terms  of  providing  information,  assistance  and  compensation),  responses  show  that  the 
majority of organisations thought the Regulation had a high or very high impact: citizens (55, 
or  42%);  consumer  associations  (7,  47%);  railway  undertakings  (9,  81%)  and  PRM 
organisations (5, 63%).  

About the impact of the Regulation was on travel opportunities for persons with disabilities 
or  with  reduced  mobility  (in  terms  of  prohibition  of  discrimination  and  assistance).  The 
responses to the OPC show that, amongst PRM organisations, the majority of responses (6, or 
75%)  suggest  the  regulation  has  had  a  high  or  very  high  impact  on  travel  opportunities  for 
persons  with  disabilities  or  with  reduced  mobility.  Similarly,  there  was  a  positive  response 
overall from railway undertakings and public authorities (73% or 8 and 11 69% respectively). 
Amongst citizens, the response is more divided, with 47 (36%) having no option, 43 (33%) 
with a high impact and 28 (22%) with a low impact. Regarding, the impact of the Regulation 
on  accessibility  of  railway  stations  and  rolling  stock  for  persons  with  disabilities  or  with 
reduced mobility. The responses to the open consultation show that, amongst citizens, there is 
a  split  opinion  with  42  (32%)  responding  that  the  Regulation  has  had  a  high  or  very  high 
impact and 38 (29%) that is has had a low or very low impact. Amongst PRM organisations, 6 
respondents  (75%)  suggest  the  regulation  has  had  a  high  or  very  high  impact,  1  respondent 
(13%) that it has had a low impact, and 1 respondent (13%) had no opinion. Whilst there is a 
positive overall response from PRM organisations, this only reflects a small response sample.  

Asked  about  the  impact  they  felt  the  Regulation  was  on  service  quality  and  complaint 
handling respondents had a split opinion, with nearly as many citizens (33% or 43) thinking 
the Regulation had had a high or very high impact on service quality and complaint handling 
as thought it had had a low or very low impact (40% or 38). This reflects the mixed picture 
Eurobarometer  found  in  terms  of  how  satisfied  passengers  were  with  complaint  handling 
mechanisms. 

On  the  perception  of  the  impact  of  the  Regulation  on  personal  security  of  passengers  in 
railway stations and on-board trains, amongst citizens, 45 (35%) of respondents indicated that 
the Regulation has had no impact on the personal security of passengers, 43 (33%) thought it 
has  had  a  low  or  very  low  impact  and  17  (13%)  a  high  or  very  high  impact.  Industry 
federations (4, or 67%) and railway undertakings (9, or 82%) also suggest the regulation has 
had a low or very low impact. 

When asked about the impact they felt the Regulation was on mobility continuity in the event 
of  major  disruption.  The  responses  to  the  OPC  show  that  amongst  citizens,  there  is  a  split 
opinion with 39 (30%) responding that the Regulation has had a high or very high impact, 48 
(37%) that is has had a low or very low impact and 24 (18%) citing no impact. Although the 
sample size is much smaller, railway undertakings (8, or 73%) and infrastructure managers (1, 
100%)  suggest  the  Regulation  has  had  a  high  impact  on  mobility  continuity  in  the  event  of 
major disruption.  

Regarding  the  impact  of  the  Regulation  on  enforcement  by  national  authorities,  responses 
show that amongst citizens, there is again a split opinion with 32 (25%) responding that the 
Regulation has had a high or very high impact, 42 (32%) that is has had a low or very low 
impact  and  20  (15%)  citing  no  impact.  Other  organisations,  such  as  industry  federations 
(83%),  public  authorities  (69%)  and  railway  undertakings  (91%)  suggest  there  is  a  high 
impact on enforcement by national authorities. 

111 

 
 
 
3  Exemptions 

3.1  Exemptions  given  to  domestic  long  distance  services  to  full  application  of  the 

regulation 

Regarding exemptions given to domestic long distance services, participants of the OPC were 
first asked whether these exemptions are necessary to safeguard certain services.   Their 
responses  show  that  amongst  citizens,  more  respondents  (66,  or  51%)  disagree  that 
exemptions  for  long  distance  domestic  services  are  necessary  to  safeguard  certain  services 
than agree 26 (20%). Amongst public authorities 5 (31%) respondents agreed that exemptions 
for  long  distance  domestic  services  are  necessary  to  safeguard  certain  services  and  6 
respondents  (38%)  had  no  opinion.  This  is  similar  to  railway  undertakings,  where  5  (45%) 
agreed  and  5  (45%)  had  no  opinion.  When  asked  whether  such  exemptions  facilitate  the 
operation  of  rail  services  for  new  entrants,  responses  show  that  amongst  citizens,  more 
respondents  (65,  or  50%)  disagree  that  exemptions  for  long  distance  domestic  services 
facilitate  the  operation  of  rail  services  for  new  entrants  than  agree  22  (17%).  Industry 
federations, public authorities and railway undertakings are mostly neutral (33%, 25%, 36% 
respectively) or have no opinion (33%, 50%, 27%).   

When  asked  whether  exemptions  given  to  domestic  long  distance  services  lead  to  legal 
uncertainty  for  railway  undertakings.  The  responses  show  that,  amongst  citizens,  more 
respondents (42, or 32%) disagree that exemptions for long distance domestic services cause 
legal uncertainty for railway undertakings than agree (36, or 28%). However, amongst railway 
undertakings  (7,  or  64%)  respondents  strongly  disagreed  that  exemptions  led  to  legal 
uncertainty  for  railway  undertakings,  with  the  remaining  4  (36%)  of  respondents  having  no 
opinion.  

Regarding  exemptions  for  long  distance  national  services  generated  legal  uncertainty  for 
passengers.  Among  citizens,  76  (58%)  either  fully  or  somewhat  agreed  that  exemptions  for 
long  distance  services  cause  legal  uncertainty  for  passengers,  while  21  (16%)  fully  or 
somewhat disagreeing with this. Among respondents from passenger/consumer associations, 8 
(53%)  fully  or  somewhat  agreed  that  exemptions  for  long  distance  services  cause  legal 
uncertainty for passengers, with only 2 (13%) fully or somewhat disagreeing with this.  

About  whether  exemptions  for  long  distance  national  services  should  stay  the  same  until 
2024,  responses  show  that,  amongst  citizens,  more  respondents  (71,  or  55%)  disagree  that 
exemptions  for  long  distance  domestic  services  should  stay  the  same  until  2024  than  agree 
(18,  or  14%).  Similarly,  10  (67%)  passenger  and  consumer  associations  also  disagree  that 
exemptions  should  stay  the  same,  whereas  railway  undertakings  (6,  or  55%)  and  industry 
federations (4, 67%) fully agree that exemptions should stay the same until 2024. 

On whether exemptions given to  domestic long  distance  services  should be removed before 
2024,  responses  show  that,  amongst  citizens,  more  respondents  (72,  or  55%)  agree  that 
exemptions for long distance domestic services should be removed before 2024 than disagree 
(20, or 15%). Railway undertakings (5, or 45%) and industry federations (3, or 50%) disagree 
that exemptions given to domestic long distance services should be removed before 2024. 

3.2  Exemptions given to services for which a significant proportion is operated outside 

of the EU.  

On  the  question  on  whether  these  exemptions  are  necessary  to  safeguard  certain  services  
responses  show  that  amongst  citizens,  33  (25%)  respondents  disagree  that  exemptions  for 

112 

 
 
 
services operated outside of the EU are necessary to safeguard certain services and 30 (23%) 
agree.  More  respondents  (50  or  38%)  have  no  opinion.  Although  many  of  the  other 
organisations  had a high response of no opinion/not  sure, 5 (45%) railway operators agreed 
that  exemptions  for  services  operated  outside  of  the  EU  are  necessary  to  safeguard  certain 
services. Regarding whether such exemptions facilitate the operation of rail services for new 
entrants,  responses  show  that  amongst  citizens,  more  respondents  (49,  or  38%)  have  no 
opinion,  43  (33%)  disagree  that  exemptions  facilitate  the  operation  of  rail  services  for  new 
entrants  and  20  (15%)  agree.  Similarly,  the  other  organisations  also  have  a  high  number  of 
respondents with no opinion or neutral response.  

Whether exemptions given to services for which a significant proportion is operated outside 
of  the  EU  lead  to  legal  uncertainty  for  railway  undertakings.  The  responses  are  similar  to 
those  for  domestic  long  distance  services  with  similar  numbers  of  citizens  (30,  or  23%) 
disagreeing that the exemption of services with a significant portion outside of the EU led to 
legal  uncertainty  for  railway  undertakings  as  agreed  (31,  or  24%).  Amongst  railway 
undertakings,  however,  none  of  the  respondents  agreed  that  the  Regulation  leads  to  legal 
uncertainty for railway undertakings. 

On  whether  the  exemptions  create  legal  uncertainty  for  passengers,  responses  are  similar  to 
those for domestic long distance services with similar numbers of citizens (60, or 46%) either 
fully or somewhat agreed that exemptions for services with a significant portion outside of the 
EU cause legal uncertainty for passengers, and 16 (12%) fully or somewhat disagreeing with 
this. Amongst respondents from passenger/consumer associations, 7 (47%) fully or somewhat 
agreed  that  exemptions  for  services  with  a  significant  portion  outside  the  EU  cause  legal 
uncertainty for passengers, with only 2 (13%) fully or somewhat disagreeing with this.  

When  asking  whether  exemptions  given  to  services  for  which  a  significant  proportion  is 
operated  outside  of  the  EU  should  stay  the  same.  The  responses  show that,  among  citizens, 
more  respondents  (45,  or  35%)  disagree  that  exemptions  given  to  services  for  which  a 
significant proportion is operated outside of the EU should stay the same than agree (11, or 
8%). Railway undertakings (6, or 55%) fully agree that 

Whether  exemptions  for  services  with  a  significant  portion  outside  of  the  EU  should  be 
removed  for  the  part  carried  out  on  EU  territory.  The  responses  show  that  among  citizens, 
more respondents fully agree or somewhat agree that exemptions should be removed for the 
part carried out on EU territory (52, or 40%) than disagree (24, or 18%), and 45 (35%) have 
no  opinion.  The  majority  of  railway  undertakings  strongly  disagree  (6,  or  55%)  that 
exemptions for services with  a significant portion outside of the EU should  be removed for 
the part carried out on EU territory. 

Whether  exemptions  for  services  with  a  significant  portion  outside  of  the  EU  should  be 
limited in time, responses show that amongst citizens, more respondents (54, or 42%) have no 
opinion,  46  (35%)  fully  or  somewhat  agree  that  exemptions  for  services  with  a  significant 
portion  outside  of  the  EU  should  be  limited  in  time  and  18  (14%)  disagree.  Passenger  and 
consumer associations also mostly fully agree that exemptions should be limited in time (5, or 
33%). In contrast, 5 (45%) railway undertakings strongly disagree.  

When  asked  on  whether  exemptions  given  to  services  for  which  a  significant  proportion  is 
operated outside of the EU should be limited in scope (e.g. the number of mandatory articles 
should  be  increased).  The  responses  show  that  amongst  citizens,  more  respondents  (61,  or 
47%) have no opinion, 44 (34%) fully or somewhat agree that exemptions for services with a 

113 

 
 
 
significant  portion  outside  of  the  EU  should  be  limited  in  scope  and  8  (6%)  disagree. 
Passenger  and  consumer  associations  also  mostly  fully  or  somewhat  agree  that  exemptions 
should  be  limited  in  time  (6,  or  40%).  In  contrast,  5  (45%)  railway  undertakings  strongly 
disagree. 

3.3  Exemptions for urban, suburban and regional services 

Regarding whether exemptions for urban, suburban and regional services should be modified, 
57  (44%)  of  citizens  believed  that  exemptions  should  be  removed.  Similarly,  7  (47%)  of 
respondents from passenger and consumer associations and 8 (38%) of respondent from PRM 
organisations  supported  the  removal  of  exemptions  entirely.  In  contrast,  no  railway 
undertakings,  infrastructure  manager  or  industry  federation  supported  the  removal  of 
exemptions. 8 (6%) of citizens and 1 (7%) of passenger and consumer associations believed 
that  exemptions  should  be  removed  when  cross-border  services  are  concerned.  Similar  to 
above,  no  railway  undertakings,  infrastructure  manager  or  industry  federation  supported  the 
removal of exemptions when cross-border services are concerned. Limitations of exemptions 
in  time  and  scope  were  supported  by  28  (22%)  of  citizens,  4  (27%)  of  passenger  and 
consumer  associations  and  2  (33%)  of  industry  federations,  but  no  railway  undertakings  or 
infrastructure manager. 

Support  for  maintaining  the  current  system  was  expressed  by  4  (67%)  industry  federation 
respondents,  7  (44%)  public  authority  respondents,  and  8  (73%)  railway  undertaking 
respondents. It should be noted that the sample sizes for these groups were much lower than 
for those groups who expressed support for a change in exemptions. 

The clear preference in the OPC responses for the removal of exemptions for urban, suburban 
and regional services does support the proposition that exemptions are a problem. 

3.4 

 Whether a phasing out and/or removal of exemptions will increase the economic 
burden on railway undertakings.  

The  OPC  asked  whether  a  phasing  out  and/or  removal  of  exemptions  will  increase  the 
economic  burden  on  railway  undertakings.  Overall,  the  belief  across  all  groups  is  that  the 
phasing  out  and/or  removal  of  exemptions  will  increase  the  economic  burden  on  railway 
undertakings. The groups which most firmly believe that the economic burden will increase 
are  industry  federation,  where  6  respondents  (100%)  believed  in  an  increase,  railway 
undertaking  with  8  (73%),  public  authority  with  11  (69%),  and  the  infrastructure  manager. 
Additionally,  57  (44%)  of  citizen  respondents  believed  that  the  economic  burden  will 
increase; 46 (35%) believed that the economic burden will increase “to some extent” and 11 
(8%) believe it will increase “significantly”. 

4  Enforcement and complaint handling 

4.1  Role and tasks of National Enforcement Bodies (NEBs). 

Respondents were  asked whether the role of the NEBs  is  clear.  Citizens were  unsure of the 
role of NEBs. 42 (32%) of citizens disagreed that the tasks and role of the NEBs is clear, and 
38 (29%) had no opinion or were not sure. 35 (27%) citizens agreed that the tasks and role 
were  clear.  Similarly,  only  3  (20%)  respondents  from  passenger  and  consumer  associations 
agreed that the role and tasks were clear. 8 (53%) disagreed that the role and tasks were clear. 
The Infrastructure Manager somewhat disagreed that the role and tasks of the NEBs is clear. 
Of  the  other  groups  surveyed,  5  (83%)  industry  federation  respondents  agreed  that  the  role 
and tasks is clear, along with 10 (63%) public authority respondents. 

114 

 
 
 
Respondents  were  asked  whether  they  agreed  that  the  tasks  of  the  NEBs  should  be 
harmonised in all Member States. Responses were mixed throughout the groups; citizens and 
passenger  and  consumer  associaiton  respondents  agreed  most  strongly  with  the  proposition, 
while  industry  groups  most  strongly  disgreed.90  (69%)  citizen  respondents  agreed  with  the 
queston,  with  only  4  (3%)  disagreeing.  Similarly,  10  (67%)  of  passenger  and  consumer 
associaiton  respondents  agreed  with  the  proposition,  with  no  disagreements  made  by  this 
group.8  (50%)  of  public  authority  respondents  agreed  with  the  question,  with  just  2  (13%) 
disagreeing.2  (34%)  industry  federation  respondents  disagreed  with  the  propostion,  with  1 
(17%)  agreeing.  Similarly,  2  (36%)  of  railway  undertaking  respondents  disgareed  with  the 
proposal,  with  1  (18%)  agreeing;  it  should  be  noted  however  that  5  (45%  of  railway 
undertaking respondents were neutral). 

Respondents  were  asked  whether  they  agreed  that  the  tasks  and  enforcement  powers  of  the 
NEBs  should  be  clearly  spelled  out  in  the  Regulation,  shown  in  Figure  A.39.Overall,  there 
was  a  general  agreement  with  the  proposition,  where  there  was  less  agreement  from  some 
groups,  this  was  because  respondents  were  either  neutral  or  had  no  opinion,  rather  than 
because  of  disagreement  by  these  groups.95  (73%)  citizen  respondents  agreed  with  the 
proposition  and  only  5  (4%)  disagreed.  Similarly,  13  (67%)  of  respondents  from  passenger 
and  consumer  associations  agreed  with  the  proposition.  6  (75%)  PRM  organisation 
respondents  strongly  agreed  with  the  proposition,  along  with  8  (50%)  of  public  authority 
respondents.  The  Infrastructure  Manager  was  neutral,  along  with  3  (50%)  of  industry 
federation respondents. 

Respondents were asked whether the role of the NEBs needs to be strengthened through new 
obligations  (such  as  reporting,  deadlines  for  complaint  handling).  Overall,  respondents 
generally agreed with the proposition, with the exception of industry federation and railway 
undertaking  respondents,  who  strongly  disagreed.  94  (72%)  of  citizens  agreed  with  the 
proposition, with only 4 (3%) disagreeing. 7 (47%) respondents from passenger and consumer 
organisations  also  agreed,  and  3  (20%)  disagreed  .In  terms  of  the  response  from  industry 
groups,  4  (67%)  industry  federation  respondents  and  7  (64%)  of  railway  undertaking 
respondents  strongly  disagreed  with  the  proposition.  There  was  support  from  the 
infrastructure  manager,  who  somewhat  agreed  with  the  proposition,  and  from  PRM 
organisation respondents, of whom 5 (63%) agreed with the proposals in some capacity. The 
response from public authorities was mixed, with 5 (31%) of respondents disagreeing and 6 
(38%) of respondents agreeing with the proposition.  

4.2 

Infringements and Complaint handling 

Respondents were asked whether the Regulation should harmonise and specify the nature of 
sanctions  for  infringements.  Overall,  responses  to  the  proposition  were  mixed,  with  citizen 
and  passenger  and  consumer  association  respondents  expressing  more  support  for  the 
proposition that rail industry groups.85 (65%) citizen respondents somewhat agreed or fully 
agreed with the proposition, as did 9 (60%) of passenger/consumer association respondents.5 
(63%) PRM respondents fully agreed with the proposition, while the Infrastructure Manager 
somewhat  agreed.    In  contrast,  3  (50%)  industry  federation  respondents  strongly  disagreed 
with the proposition, as did 7 (64%) railway undertaking respondents.  

When  answering  the  question  whether  actors  other  than  railway  undertakings  (e.g.  station 
managers) should also have a role in dealing with complaint handling , citizens, passenger and 
consumer  associations  answered  more  affirmatively  to  the  question  than  rail  industry 
respondents. 71 (55%) of citizen respondents replied yes to the question the question, as did 

115 

 
 
 
11  (69%)  public  authority  respondents,  and  7  (47%)  passenger/consumer  association 
respondents.  Conversely,  8  (73%)  railway  undertaking  respondents  answered  “no”,  as  did  4 
(67%) industry federation respondents and the Infrastructure Manager. 

4.3  Transport disruptions and mobility continuity  

Regarding the question whether passengers in all EU countries are sufficiently protected and 
assisted in case of disruptions 6 (40%) passenger and consumer organisation respondents, 2 
(25%) PRM organisation respondents and 4 (25%) of public authority respondents of the OPC 
had no opinion on this matter, the most commonly supported belief amongst all respondents 
was that passengers are protected in some EU countries. 38 (29%) citizen respondents and 3 
(38%)  PRM  organisation  respondents  believed  that  no  passengers  are  protected  in  the  EU, 
while  this  view  was  not  expressed  by  any  respondents  from  industry  federations,  railway 
undertakings or by the Infrastructure Manager.  

Respondents  were  asked  to  consider  if  the  economic  burden  for  passenger  assistance  is 
appropriately  shared  between  railway  undertakings  and  other  parties  in  case  of  major 
disruption.  Overall,  many  respondents  from  the  stakeholder  categories  did  not  have  an 
opinion  on  the  question,  but  where  a  strong  opinion  was  given,  7  (64%)  of  railway 
undertaking respondents did not believe that the burden for passenger is assistance is equally 
shared,  as  did  50  (38%)  citizen  respondents.  Conversely,  the  Infrastructure  Manager  agreed 
that the burden is appropriately shared, as did 3 (38%) PRM organisation respondents. 

Respondents were asked whether the requirement for contingency planning for rail transport 
operators  in  case  of  major  rail  transport  disruption  should  be  part  of  the  framework  of  rail 
passenger  rights.  Responses  to  the  question  were  split  along  passenger  and  industry  lines. 
Respondents from citizens, passenger and consumer associations and PRM organisations were 
strongly  in  favour  of  requiring  contingency  planning  to  be  part  of  the  framework  of  rail 
passenger  rights,  while  responses  from  industry  groups  were  strongly  opposed  to  the 
requirement.  102  (78%)  of  citizen  responses  were  in  favour  of  the  requirement,  as  were  12 
(80%) of passenger and consumer association respondents, and 8 (100%) PRM respondents. 
The  Infrastructure  Manager  was  also  in  favour.  Conversely,  5  (83%)  industry  federation 
respondents were not in favour of the requirement, along with 9 (82%) of railway undertaking 
respondents.  

Respondents were asked to describe the main benefits of contingency planning. 32 (50%) of 
organisations responded. Of these, 8 (25%) represented passenger/consumer organisations, 2 
(6%)  represented  industry  federations,  6  (19%)  represented  public  authorities,  8  (25%) 
represented  railway  undertakings,  6  (19%)  represented  PRM  organisations  and  2  (6%) 
represented other organisations.     

For  passenger/consumer  organisations  and  PRM  organisations  (14,  or  31%),  the  most 
common response (from 4 organisations) suggested the main benefits of contingency planning 
are that it reduces uncertainty and standardises emergency/evacuation procedures particularly 
for passengers with disabilities or PRMs, and also provides  information in different formats. 
Other  responses,  indicated  by  2  organisations,  suggest  the  main  benefits  of  contingency 
planning are as follows: 

  provision of intermodal passenger rights; 
  provision of real-time multi-modal travel Information and planning services; 
 

increased care and assistance to passengers, ensuring they receive adequate assistance and 
protection; and 

116 

 
 
 
  more accurate and faster information for passengers in the case of disruptions.  

For Industry federations, railway undertakings and infrastructure managers (10, or 31%), the 
most  common  response  (from  5  organisations)  suggested  the  main  benefits  of  contingency 
planning are the ability to serve passengers in extreme conditions. In addition, 4 organisations 
indicated  that  the  main  benefit  is  through  staged  disasters  and  crisis  simulation  exercises 
which aid preparation and response and test the impact on the  rail network. This raises staff 
awareness of and sensitivity towards crisis situations. 

Asked about the main negative impacts of contingency planning,23 organisations provided a 
response  to  this  question,  representing  33%  of  the  number  of  respondents.  There  are 
differences  between  the  various  groups.  The  industry  response  rate  is  high  at  67%  (12 
organisations out of 18) whilst other groups have a lower response rate as follows: 

citizens and passenger organisations 17% response rate (4 out of 23)  

 
  public authorities 25% (4 out of 16) 
  others including ticket vendors 25% (3 out of 12) 

These differences in response rates are justifiable since the industry would be the one bearing 
the direct cost and responsibility of contingency planning. 

Responses  varied  across  stakeholder  groups  but  they  generally  suggest  the  following  main 
negative impacts: 

  Allocating  railway  undertakings  with  additional  responsibilities  that  normally  sit  with 
public  authorities  and  increasing  bureaucracy  (9  responses  mainly  from  railway 
undertakings) 

  Conversely a series of other organisations mainly consumer and passenger organisations 
as well as public authorities felt there were no negative impacts of contingency planning 
  Another main point raised relates to the costs of implementing contingency plans which 

was mentioned in 4 responses 

There were also a series of other points that were made by respondents mainly questioning the 
efficiency  of  contingency  planning  regulation  at  EU  level,  some  responders  noting  that 
contingency  planning  is  better  managed  at  local  level,  it  is  more  flexible  to  respond  to 
changing situations on the ground and is already part of the operational requirements of the 
railways and of other EU regulation and should not be duplicated within the passenger rights 
regulation. These comments were captured in 4 of the responses from railway undertakings, 
industry federation and public authorities. 

5  Force Majeure 

When asked if railway undertakings should have to pay compensation to passengers even in 
cases  where  delays  were  caused  by  events  beyond  the  control  of  railway  undertakings  and 
which they were not able to prevent 

Opinions  on  this  question  varied  between  passenger  and  consumer  associations  and  PRM 
organisations  who  broadly  considered  that  railway  undertakings  should  have  to  pay 
compensation  in  cases  where  delays  were  beyond  their  control,  and  railway  undertakings, 
industry  federations  and  infrastructure  managers  who  believed  that  rail  undertakings  should 
not  have  to  pay  compensation  in  these  cases.95  (73%)  citizen  respondents  believed  that 
compensation should be paid, as did 9 (60%) of passenger and consumer associations and 6 
(63%)  PRM  association  respondents.  In  contrast,  rail  industry  groups  did  not  believe  that 

117 

 
 
 
compensation should be paid. 6 (100%) industry federation respondents were not in favour of 
the  payment,  along  with  11  (100%)  railway  undertaking  respondents,  the  Infrastructure 
Manager, and 8 (72%) “other” respondents. 

6  Assistance to PRMs 

Respondents were asked whether they had ever requested assistance for themselves or another 
person with a disability or with reduced mobility when travelling, the majority of respondents 
(91, 72%) had not asked for assistance. The remaining 36 (28%) had asked for assistance. 

Respondents  were  asked  to  give  their  opinion  on  the  general  information  about  the 
accessibility of rail services and on the access conditions of rolling stock. Overall, information 
on  accessibility  and  access  conditions  was  viewed  positively,  although  rail  industry 
respondents had a more positive view of information than citizens, passenger and consumer 
associations  and  PRM  organisations.  4  (50%)  PRM  organisation  respondents  considered 
information to be “good”, although 2 (25%) respondents considered information to be “bad”, 
with  the  remaining  2  (25%)  believing  that  information  is  “neither  good  nor  bad”. 41  (32%) 
citizen  respondents  believed  that  information  is  “good”  or  “very  good”,  but  33  (25%) 
respondents  believed  that  information  is  “bad”  or  “very  bad.  Just  2  (13%)  passenger  and 
consumer association respondents believe that information  is “good”. Conversely, 6 (100%) 
industry respondents believed that information is “good” or “very good”, along with 10 (91%) 
railway undertaking responses. 

Respondents were asked to assess the accessibility of travel information to be provided before 
and  during  the  journey  (including  its  provision  in  alternative  formats)  .Respondents  from 
passenger  and  consumer  associations  and  PRM  organisations  viewed  the  accessibility  of 
travel information much less positively than rail industry respondents. 1 (7%) passenger and 
consumer  association  considered  accessibility  of  information  to  be  “good”  or  “very  good”, 
along with 2 (25%) PRM organisations. 4 (50%) PRM respondents considered accessibility of 
information to be “bad” or “very bad”. Conversely, 4 (66%) industry federation respondents 
believe  that  accessibility  of  information  is  “good”  or  “very  good”,  as  do  8  (73%)  railway 
undertaking respondents. The Infrastructure Manager believes that information is “good”. 

Respondents  were  asked  to  access  the  accessibility  of  stations,  platforms,  rolling  stock  and 
other facilities. Citizens, passenger and consumer associations and PRM organisations largely 
viewed accessibility as “bad” or “very bad”, while rail industry groups viewed accessibility as 
“neither good nor bad”.45 (35%) citizen respondents viewed accessibility as “bad” or “very 
bad”,  as  did  5  (63%)  PRM  organisation  respondents  and  4  (27%)  passenger  and  consumer 
association  respondents.  3  (50%)  industry  federation  respondents  believed  that  accessibility 
was  “neither  good  nor  bad”,  as  did  6  (55%)  railway  undertaking  respondents.  Only  2  of  17 
respondents from these two groups believed accessibility to be “bad”, with none considering 
it “very bad”. 

Respondents  were  asked  to  assess  assistance  provided  at  stations,  during  boarding, 
disembarking  and  on-board.  Passenger  and  consumer  associations  and  PRM  organisations 
largely believed that assistance provided at stations was either “bad”, “very bad” or “neither 
good or bad”, while rail industry groups had a more positive view of the assistance available.4 
(50%)  PRM  organisation  respondents  considered  assistance  to  be  “bad”,  with  only  1  (13%) 
respondent  considering  assistance  to  be  “good”  or  “very  good”.  The  remaining  3  38% 
respondents  considered  assistance  to  be  “neither  good  nor  bad”.7  (47%)  passenger  and 
consumer organisations respondents did  not  have an opinion on the matter, with  a further 4 

118 

 
 
 
(27%)  of  respondents  considering  assistance  to  be  “bad”.  1  (7%)  respondent  considered 
assistance  to  be  “good”.  Rail  industry  groups  viewed  assistance  provided  at  stations  much 
more  positively,  with  6  (100%)  industry  federation  respondents  believing  assistance  to  be 
“good  or  “very  good”,  along  with  8  (73%)  railway  undertaking  respondents.  Both  the 
Infrastructure  Manager  and  the  ticket  vendor  who  was  surveyed  agreed  that  assistance  is 
“good”.  

Respondents  were  asked  to  assess  financial  compensation  in  case  of  loss  or  damage  to 
mobility  equipment.67%  of  all  respondents  did  not  have  an  opinion  when  asked  to  assess 
financial compensation. Of those respondents who did have an opinion, many considered the 
compensation  to  be  “neither  good  nor  bad”2  (26%)  respondents  from  PRM  organisations 
considered compensation to be “bad” or “very bad” with 1 (13%) considering compensation 
to  be  either  “good”  or  “very  good”.  Respondents  from  rail  industry  groups  viewed 
compensation  most  positively,  with  4  (67%)  industry  federation  respondents  believing 
compensation  to  be  “good”  or  “very  good”,  along  with  9  (82%)  railway  undertaking 
respondents. 

The  OPC  asked  respondents  whether  the  assistance  provided  to  persons  with  disabilities  or 
with reduced mobility at stations needs to be reinforced. These responses show that, amongst 
citizens, 42 (32%) responded yes strongly to whether the assistance provided to persons with 
disabilities  or  with  reduced  mobility  at  stations  needs  to  be  reinforced  and  46  (35%) 
responded yes to a limited extent. All industry federations (6) and infrastructure managers (1) 
responded  no.  Conversely,  all  PRM  organisations  (8)  responded  yes  (either  strongly  or  to  a 
limited extent).  

The  OPC  asked  respondents  whether  there  is  a  need  to  enshrine  provisions  for  minimum 
compulsory awareness and assistance training for staff in the legal framework. The responses 
show that 71 (55%) of citizens think that there is a need to enshrine provisions for minimum 
compulsory  awareness  and  assistance 
legal  framework. 
Passenger/consumer associations (7, 47%) and public authorities (9, 56%) agree with this. All 
railway undertakings (11) and industry federations (6) responded that there is no need for this.  

training  for  staff 

the 

in 

This question required respondents to identify what are in their view the main benefits of staff 
training.  26  organisations  replied  representing  38%  of  the  respondents.  The  majority  of 
responses  12  (46%)  came  from  citizen  and  passenger  organisations  and  7  responses  (27%) 
from  public  authorities  followed  by  5  responses  (19%)  from  the  industry.  Overall  the 
respondents identified a series of benefits that largely fall under the following categories: 

 

  better  understanding  of  passenger  needs  and  increased  ability  to  help  and  care  for  the 
customer  (mentioned  in  20  responses,  half  of  which  came  from  citizens  and  passengers 
associations) 
increased confidence and mutual trust between staff and the passengers with disabilities 
(mentioned  in  3  responses  by  2  citizens  and  passengers  organisations  and  one  public 
authority) 
increased  customer  satisfaction  and  usage  levels  (mentioned  in  5  responses,  3 
representing citizens and passengers associations) 
reduced personal damage to passengers with disabilities (mentioned in 2 responses, both 
from citizens and passenger organisations) 

 

 

  better usage of the equipment in stations and on trains (mentioned in 3 responses) 

119 

 
 
 
 
 
 
There  were  also  some  additional  comments  raised  in  the  responses  mainly  to  do  with  the 
wider  requirement  for  infrastructure  improvements  to  cater  for  the  entire  journey  of  a 
passenger  not  just  his  experience  in  the  station  or  on  the  train  but  also  regarding  staff 
shortages especially in some regional, urban and suburban stations. 

This  question  required  respondents  to  identify  what  would  be  the  main  additional  negative 
impacts  or  costs  for  staff  training.  Only  13  organisations  replied  representing  19%  of  the 
respondents.  The  majority  of  responses  (77%)  were  received  from  the  industry  and  citizens 
and  passenger  associations.  1  responses  (8%)  came  from  public  authorities  and  2  responses 
(15%) from other stakeholders. Overall the respondents identified very few negative impacts 
with 4 (31%) responses specifically recognising that there are cost implications to the industry 
but that these costs should not represent an impediment to providing training. Other responses 
pointed  out  that  training  requirements  could  become  too  restrictive  and  inflexible  (4 
responses) and that situation will be reflected in the increase in costs for the industry and for 
some public authorities who are subsidising some contracts. There was also one respondent 
that  was  of  the  opinion  that  training  for  staff  is  time  consuming  and  another  one  that  some 
staff  might  require  alterations  to  their  employment  contracts  to  reflect  the  additional 
responsibilities. 

Respondents were asked to propose other measures that should be implemented to facilitate 
rail  travel  for  people  with  disabilities.  34  responses  were  received  representing  a  49% 
response  rate.  12  responses  came  from  the  industry (35%), 11  from  citizens  and  passengers 
associations  (32%),  6  responses  from  public  authorities  (18%)  and  5  responses  (15%)  from 
other  organisations.  The  responses  mentioned  a  series  of  measures  to  further  facilitate  rail 
travel for people with disabilities with the most respondents mentioning  

 

 

strong financial support from relevant authorities (third parties, national government and 
the EU) to upgrade infrastructure and rolling stock (16 responses) 
extension  of  the  accessibility  agenda  to  include  a  comprehensive,  inter-modal  approach 
(13 responses) 

Other frequently mentioned measures were the provision of additional station and train staff 
(7  responses)  and  improved  information  and  ticketing  provision  for  people  with  sensory 
impairments  (7  responses).  Additionally,  4  responses  mentioned  the  need  to  reduce  or  even 
remove  the  requirement  to  provide  advance  notice  of  travel,  2  responses  mentioned  the 
adherence to the TSI PRM and one response mentioned an EU wide information campaign on 
the topic. 

7  Definitions and other issues  

Further,  respondents  were  asked  whether  the  concept  of  "carrier"  (notably  in  the  context  of 
assistance and compensation in the event of delays and missed connections) was unclear. the 
majority of citizens have no opinion on whether certain terms or rules in the Regulation are 
unclear in the Regulation which might cause problems to the stakeholders involved in relation 
to  the  notion  of  “carrier”.  Amongst  citizens,  31  (15%)  think  that  the  concept  of  carrier  is 
unclear,  17  (13%)  responded  that  there  was  no  problem,  and  82  (63%)  did  not  have  an 
opinion.  The  majority  of  railway  undertakings  responded  that  the  notion  of  “carrier”  in  the 
regulation was unclear (8, or 73%). 

When  asked  if  terms  or  rules  in  the  Regulation  were  unclear  or  missing  in  relation  to  the 
notion of “missed connection”. The responses show that amongst citizens there is a range of 
responses but the highest, excluding no opinion, is 27 (21%) who responded that the concept 

120 

 
 
 
of missed connections is unclear. Railway undertakings (9, or 82%) and industry federations 
(3,  or  50%)  responded  that  there  was  no  problem  with  the  clarity  of  the  rules  in  the 
Regulation. 

The OPC asked respondents whether the concept of "through tickets" (notably in the context 
of assistance and compensation in the event of delays and missed connections) was unclear.  
As  can  be  seen,  amongst  citizens,  46  (35%)  think  that  the  concept  of  through  tickets  is 
unclear,  with  a  further  14  (11%)  thinking  it  is  missing  or  partly  missing.  Amongst 
passenger/consumer associations, 6 (40%) think it is unclear, whilst a further 3 (20%) think it 
is missing or partly missing. This does not necessarily imply that tickets sold under a single 
contract are not being treated as through tickets. However, it does clearly suggest there is a 
lack  of  clarity  in  the  Regulation  and/or  its  interpretation  (notwithstanding  the  EC 
Interpretative Guidelines).  

The  OPC  asked  respondents  whether  rules  on  railway  undertakings'  liability  for  passengers 
and  luggage  in  case  of  accidents  were  unclear.  Amongst  citizens,  although  the  majority  of 
respondents  had  no  opinion  (78,  60%),  35  (27%)  think  the  rules  on  railway  undertakings' 
liability  for  passengers  and  luggage  in  case  of  accidents  are  unclear,  missing  or  obsolete. 
Amongst railway undertakings, 8 (73%) also responded that this was unclear.    

Regarding  the  question  whether  the  general  framework  for  rail  passenger  rights  should 
prohibit direct or indirect discrimination on grounds of nationality, in addition to Article 18 of 
the  TFEU,  amongst  citizens  and  passenger/consumer  associations,  the  opinion  is  that  the 
general  framework  for  rail  passenger  rights  prohibits  direct  or  indirect  discrimination  on 
grounds of nationality with 76 citizens (58%) and 10 passenger/consumer associations (67%) 
responding  yes.  Industry  federations  (3,  or  50%)  and  railway  undertakings  (5,  45%)  also 
agreed that the framework for rail passenger rights prohibits direct or indirect discrimination 
on grounds of nationality. 

The  OPC  asked  respondents their  opinion regarding  inconsistencies  between  the  Regulation 
and the uniform rules CIV in its Annex I. As shown, 30 citizens (23%) think that the best way 
to deal with inconsistencies between the Regulation and the uniform rules CIV is to keep the 
body of the regulation and the UR CIV together in a single piece of legislation and include a 
clause/article  allowing  amendments  or  updates.  This  opinion  is  supported  by  8  (53%)  of 
passenger  and  consumer  associations,  5  (31%)  public  authorities  and  4  (50%)  of  PRM 
organisations.  

The  OPC  asked  respondents  their  opinion  on  whether  the  dissemination  of  information  to 
passengers  at  the  national  level  is  most  appropriate.  The  responses  show  that  amongst 
citizens, 48 (37%) respondents think new national legislation is required in the dissemination 
of  information  to  passengers,  and  24  (18%)  suggest  voluntary  agreements  are  more 
appropriate.  Responses  from  PRM  organisations  also  show  a  preference  for  new  national 
legislation (4, or 50%).  

The OPC asked respondents their opinion on whether liability of railway undertakings in the 
event  of  accidents  and  their  obligations  towards  passengers  and  their  luggage  should  be 
addressed  at  the  national  level.  The  responses  show  that  amongst  citizens,  50  (38%) 
respondents  think  new  national  legislation  is  required  and  19  (15%)  suggest  voluntary 
agreements are more appropriate. Responses from PRM organisations show a preference for 
new national legislation (3, or 38%) and other legislation (4, or 50%).   

121 

 
 
 
The OPC asked respondents their opinion on whether obligations of railway undertakings to 
passengers in the event of delays, cancellation or missed connections should be addressed at 
the national level. The responses show that amongst citizens, 54 (42%) respondents think new 
national  legislation  is  required  and  17  (13%)  suggest  voluntary  agreements  are  more 
appropriate. Responses from PRM organisations also show a clear preference for new national 
legislation (5, or 63%). Railway undertakings and industry federations show a preference for 
other legislation (64% and 67% respectively).  

The  OPC  asked  respondents  their  opinion  on  whether  liability  of  railway  undertakings  to 
compensate  passengers  for  delays  caused  by  unforeseen  and  unavoidable  events  (force 
majeure)  should  be  addressed  at  the  national  level.  44  (34%)  of  citizen  responses  were  in 
favour of new national legislation, 20 (15%) were in favour of voluntary agreements and 42 
(32%)  had  no  opinion  about  whether  liability  of  railway  undertakings  to  compensate 
passengers for delays caused by force majeure should be addressed at a national level. PRM 
organisations  were  also  heavily  in  favour  of  new  national  legislation  (5,  or  63%)  and  the 
preference of 8 (73%) railway undertakings was for other legislation.  

The OPC asked respondents their opinion on whether accessibility and assistance for disabled 
passengers  and  passengers  with  reduced  mobility  should  be  addressed  at  the  national  level. 
Responses  to  the  question  were  largely  split  between  passenger  and  consumer  associations 
and PRM organisations and industry respondents.56 (43%) citizen respondents were in favour 
of  new  national  legislation,  as  were  4  (50%)  PRM  organisation  respondents  and  4  (27%) 
Passenger  and  consumer  associations.  7  (44%)  public  authority  respondents  were  also  in 
favour of new legislation. Conversely, 4 industry federations (67%) were in favour of “other” 
options as were 7 (64%) railway undertaking respondents. The Infrastructure Manager was in 
favour of voluntary agreements. 

The OPC asked respondents their opinion on whether enforcement should be addressed at the 
national  level.  Similar  to  other  questions  on  whether  other  issues  should  be  addressed  at 
national  level,  responses  differed  between  passenger  and  consumer  associations  and  PRM 
organisations on the one hand and rail industry respondents on the other hand. 4 (50%) PRM 
organisation respondents were in favour of new national legislation for enforcement, as were 
51  (39%)  citizen  respondents.  7  (44%)  public  authority  respondents  were  also  in  favour  of 
new national legislation. Conversely, 4 (67%) industry federation respondents were in favour 
of  “other”  options,  as  were  7  (64%)  railway  undertakings  respondents,  and  the  one  (100%) 
ticket  vendor  who  responded.  The  Infrastructure  Manager  was  in  favour  of  voluntary 
agreements.  

The OPC asked respondents their opinion on whether complaint handling should be addressed 
at the national level. Responses to the question were largely split between citizens, passenger 
and  consumer  associations  and  PRM  organisations  and  industry  respondents.5  (63%)  PRM 
organisation respondents were in favour of new national legislation, as were 55 (42%) citizen 
respondents,  and  8  (50%)  public  authority  respondents.  Conversely,  4  industry  federations 
(67%)  were  in  favour  of  “other”  options  as  were  7  (64%)  railway  undertaking  respondents 
and  the  surveyed  ticket  vendor.  The  Infrastructure  Manager  was  in  favour  of  voluntary 
agreements. 

The OPC asked respondents for their opinion on whether information provided to passengers 
should  be  addressed  at  EU  level.  The  majority  of  respondent  groups  favoured  a  revision  of 
Regulation  1371/2007  to  address  information  provided  to  passengers.  This  option  was 
supported  by  11  (73%)  passenger  and  consumer  association  respondents,  5  (63%)  PRM 

122 

 
 
 
organisation  respondents,  8  (50%)  public  authority  respondents,  and  51  (39%)  citizen 
respondents. This was also supported by the Infrastructure Manager and the ticket vendor. In 
contrast,  4  (67%)  industry  federation  respondents  favoured  “other”  options,  as  did  6  (55%) 
railway undertakings respondents. 

The OPC asked respondents for their opinion on whether liability of railway undertakings in 
the  event  of  accidents  and  their  obligations  towards  passengers  and  their luggage  should  be 
addressed at EU level. The majority of respondent groups favoured a revision of Regulation 
1371/2007.  This  option  was  supported  by  5  (63%)  PRM  organisation  respondents,  8  (53%) 
passenger and consumer association respondents,  8 (50%) public authority respondents, and 
48  (37%)  citizen  respondents.  This  was  also  supported  by  the  ticket  vendor.  Conversely,  4 
(67%)  industry  federation  respondents  and  6  (55%)  railway  undertakings  respondents 
favoured “other” options. The Infrastructure Manager favoured voluntary agreements. 

The OPC asked respondents for their opinion of whether Obligations of railway undertakings 
to  passengers  in  the  event  of  delays,  cancellation  or  missed  connections  (information, 
assistance,  compensation)  should  be  addressed  at  EU  level.  The  majority  of  respondent 
groups favoured a revision of Regulation 1371/2007. This option was supported by 7 (83%) 
PRM  organisation  respondents,  11  (73%)  passenger/consumer  association  respondents,  8 
(50%)  public  authority  respondents,  and  57  (44%)  citizen  respondents.  This  was  also 
supported  by  the  ticket  vendor.  Conversely,  4  (67%)  industry  federation  respondents  and  6 
(55%) railway undertakings respondents favoured “other” options. The infrastructure manager 
favoured voluntary agreements. 

The OPC asked respondents for their opinion on whether liability of railway undertakings to 
compensate  passengers  for  delays  caused  by  unforeseen  and  unavoidable  events  (force 
majeure) should be addressed at EU level. Opinion was largely  split between passenger and 
consumer  associations  and  PRM  organisations,  and  rail  industry  groups.  6  (75%)  PRM 
organisation  respondents,  10  (67%)  passenger/consumer  association  respondents,  and  54 
(42%) citizen respondents favoured a revision of Regulation 1371/2007. This option was also 
supported by the ticket vendor. Conversely, 6 (55%) railway undertakings respondents and 3 
(50%)  industry  federation  respondents  favoured  “other”  options,  and  the  Infrastructure 
Manager favoured voluntary agreements.  

The  OPC  asked  respondents  for  their  opinion  on  whether  accessibility  and  assistance  for 
disabled passengers and passengers with reduced mobility should be addressed at EU level. 9 
(60%)  passenger  and  consumer  association  respondents  and  4  (50%)  PRM  organisation 
respondents favoured a revision of the Regulation. 45 (35%) citizen respondents also favoured 
this  option,  which  had  the  most  support  from  that  respondent  group  after  the  49  (38%) 
respondents  who  had  no  opinion.  This  option  was  also  supported  by  the  ticket  vendor. 
Conversely,  4  (67%)  industry  federation  respondents  and  7  (64%)  railway  undertakings 
respondents  favoured  “other”  options.  The  Infrastructure  Manager  favoured  voluntary 
agreements.  

The  OPC  asked  respondents  for  their  opinion  on  whether  it  is  appropriate  to  address 
enforcement  at  EU  level.  Opinion  was  generally  split  between  passenger  and  consumer 
associations  and  PRM  organisations,  and  rail  industry  groups.  5  (63%)  PRM  organisation 
respondents, 10 (67%) passenger and consumer association respondents, and 52 (40%) citizen 
respondents favoured a revision of the Regulation. Additionally, this option was supported by 
the ticket vendor. Conversely, 4 (67%) industry federation respondents and 6 (55%) railway 

123 

 
 
 
undertakings  respondents  favoured  “other”  options.  The  Infrastructure  Manager  favoured 
voluntary agreements.  

The  OPC  asked  respondents  for  their  opinion  on  whether  it  is  appropriate  to  address 
complaint handling at EU level. 10 (67%) passenger and consumer association respondents, 4 
(50%) PRM organisation respondents, and 49 (38%) citizen respondents favoured a revision 
of the Regulation. Additionally, this option was supported by the ticket vendor. Conversely, 4 
(67%)  industry  federation  respondents  and  6  (55%)  railway  undertakings  respondents 
favoured  “other”  options.    The  Infrastructure  Manager  favoured  voluntary  agreements. 

124 

 
 
 
Appendix II - Targeted Consultations 

Targeted stakeholder consultations have demonstrated that application and impact of the 
Regulation  varies  widely  between  Member  States.  This  is  largely  due  to  the  differing 
nature of the rail market in  different Member States and the level to which exemptions 
are  applied.  Despite  these  differences,  responses  from  organisations  within  each 
stakeholder category were similar across Member States. The findings from the targeted 
stakeholder  consultation  helped  better  inform  the  impact  that  potential  options  would 
have  across  the  broad  range  of  stakeholders  that  are  relevant  to  changes  in  of  rail 
passengers’  rights.  In  order  to  better  understand  the  problem,  case  studies  were 
undertaken as part of the targeted stakeholder consultation.  

The case studies  provide an in  depth  understanding  of the  situation in thirteen member 
states,  with  a  broad  range  of  stakeholders  being  interviewed,  including  face-to-face 
interviews  with  National  Enforcement  Bodies  and  railway  undertakings  and  telephone 
interviews  with  railway  undertaking  associations,  infrastructure  managers,  station 
managers, consumer associations and PRM organisations in these member states. In the 
thirteen  non-case  study  states,  telephone  interviews  with  National  Enforcement  Bodies 
and  railway  undertakings  mainly  for  the  purpose  of  data  collection  were  held.  In  the 
following pages, the main conclusions of the targeted consultations will be summarised 
around main issues.  

1  Awareness and information about passenger rights. 

Respondents in Latvia, Belgium, Hungary, Ireland, Luxembourg and the Finnish NEBs 
stated that passengers are not very much aware of the Regulation.  In Hungary according 
to the NKH passengers are often not aware of the rules of compensation for delay; and 
the  rules  of  reimbursement  of  unused  tickets.  Moreover,  they  do  not  receive  enough 
information  during  the  journey.  According  to  NHK,  passengers’  awareness  could  be 
increased  by  requiring  limited  information  about  passengers’  rights  to  be  printed  on 
tickets. Modern technologies (e.g. QR codes) could be used.   

On  the  other  hand  the  Finish  RU,  Germany’s  EBA  and  DB,  and  the  Swedish  NEB 
(Consumer Agency) stated that passengers are quite aware of the main principles of the 
Regulation.  For  instance,  in  Germany,  since  the  Regulation  came  into  force,  several 
information campaigns such as print or TV adverts have been run, and that the number of 
complaints  to  the  NEB  has  increased  constantly  over  time.  In  addition,  the  nature  of 
complaints  that  the  NEB  receives  from  passengers  are  much  more  complex  than  those 
received  in  the  first  years  after  the  Regulation  came  into  force,  suggesting  greater 
engagement with the content of passengers’ rights regulations.  DB expressed the view 
that  passengers  are  nearly  fully  aware  of  their  rights  in  the  Regulation.  Customer 
satisfaction surveys carried out by DB confirm the high awareness. For the last six years, 
staff in DB’s long distance trains has been handing out compensation forms in cases of 
delays of more than 60 minutes.  

As  another  example,  the  Swedish  Consumer  Agency  noted  that  despite  the  high 
awareness  levels,  operators  often  implement  the  Regulation  through  their  terms  and 
conditions,  which  tends  to  mislead  passengers  about  their  legal  rights  as  opposed  to 
commercial rights; 

125 

 
 
 
 
2  Exemptions 

Some NEBs and RUs expressed their concerns related to the removal of exemptions in 
France, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania and the UK. For instance, in France RUs 
are  emphatic  that  the  exemptions  for  regional,  urban  and  suburban  should  remain  as 
withdrawing them would increase the difficulties faced by railway undertakings, with an 
excessive cost burden threatening delivery and improvement of the rail mode. Moreover, 
there are concerns related to any removal of exemptions in another Member State where 
they have subsidiaries operating (such as Keolis in Germany). Such a change may lead to 
a  change  in  the  burden  of  costs  between  the  operator,  the  sponsoring  authority  and  the 
passenger. 

SNCF  provided  information  about  the  increased  costs  occasioned  by  removing  the 
previous exemptions, although it stated that it did not have the information to provide a 
breakdown  by  service  type.  In  this  line,  Transdev  said  that  Exemptions  for  PSO-type 
services should be maintained. The UTP expressed the view that the situation regarding 
cross-border services is not clear enough. 

DB  stated  that  a  removal  of  the  exemption  for  urban,  suburban  and  regional  services 
from the requirement to offer  meals and refreshments in case of delays larger than one 
hour would have a major impact on its operations, as many of the affected rail services 
currently  do  not  offer  on-board  catering.  Hence,  in  case  of  lifting  this  exemption,  DB 
would need to carry meals and refreshments on these services. In addition, DB suggest 
that only a small number of passengers would benefit from the removal of this exemption 
because such delays appear only on very few occasions on urban, suburban and rural rail 
services. 

According to Lietuvos Geležinkeliai (Lithuanian Railways), the removal or limitation of 
time  or  in  scope  of  the  application  of  exemptions  which  are  currently  granted  in 
Lithuania  for  domestic  services  would  entail  greater  financial  pressure  on  the  railway 
sector.    Therefore,  LG  considers  the  flexibility  provided  by  the  Regulation  concerning 
the  possibility  for  Member  States  to  grant  exemptions  to  be  pivotal  in  reducing  the 
impact of different economic conditions under which railway services are operated across 
Europe.  In  the  case  of  Romania,  the  NEB  suggested  that  the  lifting  of  all  exemptions 
would  be  counter-productive  financially  and  would  likely  slow  down  the  progress 
already  made.  A  similar  position  has  been  expressed  by  the  national  operator  CFR 
Călători.  Both  organisations  indicated  removal  of  exemptions  would  make  the 
continuation of business very difficult but did not provide supporting documentation to 
this extent 

In UK, ATOC is concerned that removing exemptions from Article 4 of the Regulation 
could  lead  to  a  ‘black  market’  in  secondary  ticket  sales  developing,  since  this  article 
references Title II, Article 7(4) of the CIV, which states that tickets must be transferable 
if they have not been made out in the passengers’ name. ATOC note that the commercial 
framework of the industry. 

Irish Rail stated that removal of exemptions currently granted and a limitation in time of 
the application of exemptions would lead to additional costs. Similarly, the Luxemburg 
NEB considers that it would be unthinkable to remove the exemptions.  It considers that 
the national network would remain classified as urban, suburban and regional.  Although 

126 

 
 
 
the  NEB  states  that  it  is  not  able  to  estimate  the  impact  on  the  operating  costs  of 
removing the exemptions, the impact would be considerable. 

Some  of  the  respondents  that  favoured  the  removal  of  exemptions  of  the  Regulation 
currently in place were both the Austrian NEB and the RU ÖBB. The reasoning behind 
this is that exempted provisions are regulated by national law, and that involved actors 
need  to  follow  two  different  laws.  In  the  UK  The  Department  for  Transport  (DfT)  is 
actively considering the removal of some exemptions, and is in the process of consulting 
on this. The DfT have confirmed that, if they remove exemptions, they will remove the 
same  exemptions  for  long  distance  and  urban/suburban/regional  services,  as  the  DfT 
considers  it important  to  have  a  consistent  approach  across all  services in  the  UK.  The 
2014  consultation  suggested  that  the  costs  of  removing  the  exemption  for  Article  13 
(relating to the payment of advance compensation in the event of serious injury or death), 
were ‘negligible’, although the consultation noted that the industry had initially assessed 
these  costs  as  being  higher.  The  2014  consultation  also  suggested  that  removing  the 
exemption  for  Article  22  (3)  would  have  ‘negligible’  costs  relating  to  the  loss  of 
advertising  space  as  a  result  of  the  requirement  to  provide  information  for  PRMs  at 
unstaffed stations. In Slovakia, the ZSSK stated that the variety of exemptions present in 
EU Member States results in a certain degree of confusion and  lack of transparency. In 
this  regard,  homogenisation,  increased  transparency  and  simplification  of  some 
provisions  would  be  beneficial  to  ensure  higher  clarity  for  passengers.  According  to 
Dopravný  úrad,  if  exemptions  from  the  Regulation  were  removed,  there  would  be 
moderate impact on the level of the NEB’s supervisory functions. 

3  Force Majeure 

Positions about the Force Majeure clause varied among member states. The Belgian, the 
French, the German, the Czech, the Lithuanian, Spanish, Finish and Swedish RUs were 
of the opinion that the current obligation regarding force majeure is inequitable compared 
with  other  modes.  In  France  SNCF  and  Transdev  both  expressed  the  view  that  the 
provisions  for  force  majeure,  as  confirmed  by  the  Court  of  Justice  ruling,  discriminate 
against the rail mode, particularly with respect to air. They argue that force majeure is a 
universal principle of law and a concept common to all modes of transport and it should 
be  applied  across  all  modes  to  ensure  legal  clarity  and  consistency  for  both  passengers 
and  carriers.  This,  argues  SNCF,  is  not  consistent  with  the  message  of  the  European 
Commission 2011 communication, which is that a certain degree of convergence among 
modes  has  to  be  ensured  to  ease  the  application  of  the  rules  by  carriers  and  citizens' 
understanding  of  their  rights.    The  German  RU  also  held  the  opinion  that  it  would 
remove inequalities compared to other modes (e.g. coach and ferries) where it has been 
clarified that in events of ‘force majeure’ operators are not required to pay compensation.  
Also,  the  Czech  RU,  ČD  believes  that  the  decision  of  the  ECJ  C-509/11  placed 
significant  discrimination  on  rail  services  compared  with  air,  bus  and  maritime 
modalities. 

On  the  other  hand,  other  respondents  from  several  MS  disagreed  and  find  that  the 
introduction of a force majeure clause is not convenient. The Austrian NEB was strongly 
in  favour  of  the  current  provision  to  not  exempt  force  majeure  events  from  the 
requirement  to  pay  compensation.  They  expressed  the  view  that  the  variation  of  the 
transport contract is what matters, regardless of the responsibility of the disruption. They 

127 

 
 
 
also  mention  the  additional  amount  of  bureaucracy  that  would  be  expected  in 
combination  with  minimal  savings  for  railway  undertakings  in  relation  to  their  overall 
revenues. 
 In  terms  of  force  majeure,  the  Finish  NEB  KVV  does  not  think  force 
majeure clauses should be added to rail sector. Moreover, it was mentioned as a way of 
comparison that Force Majeure should be removed in the APR Regulation and standard 
compensation  (concerning  cancellations  and  delays)  should  be  tied  to  the  price  of  the 
ticket, as is the case in the rail sector. In the UK, it was noted that in the context of the 
DfT’s  decision  to  not  include  a  force  majeure  clause  in  the  Delay  Repay  schemes 
included  within  franchise  agreements,  the  exact  application  of  any  such  force  majeure 
clause could have an unintended consequence. ATOC’s written response to our questions 
highlighted the lack of parity between modes as regards force majeure, but did not favour 
the  inclusion  of  a  force  majeure  clause  in  the  Regulation;  instead,  ATOC  favour  the 
removal of force majeure clauses for compensation in passengers’ rights regulations for 
other  modes.  The  ORR  stated  that  regarding  any  potential  revision  to  the  Regulation, 
their  position  would  be  one  of  opposing  any  change  that  would  reduce  passenger 
benefits. This is of particular concern relating to force majeure 

The  answers  provided  by  Estonia  and  Ireland  were  in  favour  of  clarifying  and 
homogenising  the  level  playing  field,  but  did  not  express  a  preference  as  on  to  force 
majeure  should  be  added  in  the  Rail  Sector,  or  ideally  eliminated  from  all  sectoral 
legislation, such as other respondents suggested. 

4  Assistance to PRMs 

The  main  issues  regarding  PRMs  seem  to  be  related  with  definitions,  alleged  potential 
price discrimination and other general assistance and accessibility related issues.  

Responses regarding assistance to PRMs were rather descriptive, with some respondents 
such  as  Hungary  expressing  categorically  that  the  accessibility  of  stations,  platforms, 
rolling stock and other facilities for persons with disabilities or with reduced mobility is 
overall  poor.  Similarly  in  Italy,  a  PRM/Consumer  Organisation  reported  that  they 
received  complaints  from  PRMs  who  found  it  difficult  to  travel  by  train  for  various 
reasons – e.g. non-operation of elevators, non-operation of platforms to get on the train, 
lack of assistance.  In addition, ANGLAT recommends that actions are taken by public 
authorities to make sure that also RUs’ staff can help in assisting PRMs – it is to be noted 
that  current  contractual  conditions  prevent  in  many  cases  staff  employed  in  RUs  to 
support PRM accessibility to trains. This could only be overcome by a re-negotiation of 
contractual  conditions  between  RU  and  employees/unions,  which  could  be  somewhat 
supported,  at  least  in  Public  Service  Contracts,  by  the  inclusion  of  provisions  set  by 
public  authorities  requiring  or  promoting  the  adoption  of  contractual  clauses  to  that 
effect.  ANGLAT’s  view  is  that,  as  part  of  Regulation  (EC)  No.  1371,  the  EU  could 
recommend the adoption of such clauses. In particular, Anglat noted that, to date, no RU 
uses  elevators  on  wagons  for  access  of  wheelchairs.  An  adjustment  of  the  employment 
contracts  of  railway  undertakings  operators  should  provide  for  the  use  of  elevators  on 
wagons – this would help to strengthen and optimize the services available to PRMs even 
in those stations where services provided by the ‘Sale Blu’ network is limited. 

In Finland, the definition of PRM causes problems because the definition varies greatly. 
If  the  definition  remains  unchanged,  then  it  should  be  clarified  in  chapter  V  that  the 
possibility  to  book  assistance  (and  consequently  have  a  guaranteed  assistance)  can  be 

128 

 
 
 
restricted at Member State level, by requesting a proof. Spontaneous request of assistance 
would  nevertheless  be  possible  for  every  PRM,  but  on  the  basis  of  best  efforts  being 
made,  rather  than  assistance  being  guaranteed.  The  objective  is  to  give  priority  to  the 
most disabled people but also to avoid having people fraudulently booking assistance if 
they are not PRMs, abusing it as a porter service. This is the same situation as described 
in  France.  Prior  to  the  removal  of  exemptions,  SNCF  offered  assistance  to  passengers 
confirmed as being disabled. Now, it considers that it cannot ask for proof of disability 
(and that disability is not the only cause of being PRM). The requests for assistance have 
increased  dramatically,  which  is  attributed  to  the  fact  that  the  service  is  seen  as  a  free 
porter service. 

A potential source of price discrimination may be present with respect to the potential for 
PRMs  from  other  Member  States  than  Italy  to  benefit  from  the  Carta  Blu  (disabled 
persons  railcard),  which  provides  discounts  for  PRMs  resident  in  Italy  and  another 
accompanying adult. Since it would not be possible for non-residents of Italy to provide 
proof of eligibility, this may lead to price discrimination on the basis of residency within 
the EU. A similar issue is observed in Latvia, The Netherlands, the UK, Austria, Bulgaria 
and Romania, whereby CFR Călători suggested that this could be resolved via a common 
framework for recognising disability uniformly across member states. 

Another  issue  related  to  accessibility  was  reported  in  Belgium,  where  disabled 
passengers  wishing  to  reserve  a  wheelchair  space  on  Thalys  or  TGV  services  cannot 
book  the  ticket  on  the  internet.  They  are  either  required  to  make  a  journey  to  an 
international  ticket  office  (there  are 28)/travel  agent  or  to  ring  a  premium  rate  number. 
The  fact  that  the  passenger  may  have  to  travel  to  the  station  or  wait  until  the  opening 
time  of  a  call  centre,  he  or  she  may  miss  out  on  a  fare rate  and  may  face  an  increased 
fare.  

Regarding definitions, SCNF stated that the definition of PRM causes problems because 
the  definition  varies  greatly.  If  the  definition  remains  unchanged,  then  it  should  be 
clarified  in  chapter  V  that  the  possibility  to  book  assistance  (and  consequently  have  a 
guaranteed  assistance)  can  be  restricted  at  member  state  level,  by  requesting  a  proof. 
Similarly, the SCNB argued that the definition of a ‘staffed station’ needs to be clarified. 
A  station  may  have  a  member  of  staff  on  duty  but  that  role  might  not  be  suitable  for 
assisting  passengers.  The  Belgian  NEB  tends  to  interpret  this  in  a  way  that  is 
unfavourable to SNCB. 

5  Definitions and other issues (through tickets) 

5.1  Definitions 

SCNF responded that the definition of “carrier” is inconsistent in the Regulation and in 
the  CIV  rules  to  which  the  Regulation  refers  to.  The  Regulation  never  uses  the  term 
“carrier”  (apart  in  the  definition  in  Art.  3)  and  puts  all  the  obligations  on  the  “railway 
undertaking”.  The  CIV  nearly  ignores  the  term  “undertaking”  and  only  focuses  on  the 
term  “carrier”,  which  may  include  domestic  bus  operators  or  international  maritime 
companies in the chain of carriage. 

The  Lithuanian  RU,  LG,  underlined  that  the  definitions  of  ‘carrier’  and  ‘ticket  vendor’ 
are  to  some  extent  unclear  and  inconsistent  with  the  Annex  1  CIV  rules  to  which  the 
Regulation  refers  to.  The  Regulation  does  not  use  the  term  ‘carrier’  and  puts  all  the 

129 

 
 
 
obligations  on  the  ‘railway  undertaking’,  whereas  CIV  focuses  on  the  term  ‘carrier’, 
which may include other entities in the chain of carriage. LG concluded that the unclear 
link between the Regulation and the CIV Uniform Rules (CIV UR) in Annex I constitute 
a negative aspect of the Regulation and raises problems in the practical implementation 
of the Regulation. VVTAT underlined that the provisions of limited information on the 
tickets  would  likely  increase  passengers’  awareness,  spurring  passengers  to  look  for 
additional information through other sources. 

The Dutch NEB feels that the only aspect of the Regulation which needs changing is the 
definition  of  key  terms  while  ROVER,  the  consumer  organisation,  suggests  that  the 
relationship between the Regulation and the CIV needs to be clearer, and that in the case 
of conflicts, it needs to be clear which rules or combination of rules are to be used. The 
Swedish  Transport  Agency  stated  the  Regulation  contains  some  terms  and  provisions 
which  are  difficult  to  apply.  Further,  terms  such  as  ‘other  facilities’,  ‘station  manager’ 
and ‘stations’ are unclear. 

According  to  the  Hungarian  NHK,  the  word  ‘delay’  is  not  used  consequently  in  the 
Regulation. Article 3 (where the definition of ‘delay’ is provided) takes into account the 
time  difference  between  the  time  the  passenger  was  scheduled  to  arrive  in  accordance 
with the published timetable and the time of his/her actual or expected arrival. Article 17 
and  18  however  take  into  account  the  time  difference  between  the  time  the  train  was 
scheduled to arrive in accordance with the published timetable and the time of its actual 
or expected arrival. 

The  polish  RU  made  mention  of  the  need  for  clearer  definitions  of  terms  within  the 
Regulations  as  at  present  the  differing  levels  of  interpretation  by  member  states  and 
railway entities leave much room for variations upon the theme. Leading from this, PKP 
Intercity  have  suggested  that  DG  MOVE  make  improvements  to  translations  of 
documents  to  non-key  languages  as  some  nuances  are  often  missed  in  translation.  One 
practical  suggestion  for  this  has  been  to  start  a  glossary  of  key  terms,  especially  in 
instances where corrections have needed to be made.  

5.2  Through tickets 

The Austrian NEB indicated that the coming into force of the Regulation had a negative 
impact on the availability of through tickets. They suggest that railway undertakings are 
more reluctant to offer through tickets, which enables them to by-pass the provisions of 
the  Regulation  for  international  services.  The  Belgian  NEB  stated  that  the  2015 
Interpretative Guidelines from the Commission have made the obligation to offer through 
tickets  less  clear:  a  single  journey  can  be  segmented  into  multiple  contracts.  SNCB 
expressed the concern that if the requirements related to through tickets are tightened too 
much,  there  is  a  risk  that  operators  will  further  reduce  the  offer  available  to  customers 
because this is a commercial product with severe commercial pressures upon operators. 

In this line, the Italian NEB ART wishes for a review of the Regulation that specifies the 
rules  on  through  tickets  which  are  unclear.  Trenitalia  also  suggested  that  there  is 
currently  no  commercial  agreement  with  other  railway  undertakings  or  transport 
operators  with  respect  to  the  sale  of  integrated  tickets  (e.g.  rail/air).  In  that  respect, 
Trenitalia stressed that it would be useful to establish a common communication protocol 
between all railway undertakings to manage assistance, claims and compensation in the 
case of multi-modal travel. Respondents in the Netherlands also found that the definition 

130 

 
 
 
of  through  ticket  must  be  clarified.  In  the  UK,ATOC  note  that,  in  the  UK,  many 
passengers create ‘virtual’ through tickets by booking separate legs as separate journeys 
– a practice referred to in the UK as ‘split ticketing’. In all cases, a through ticket would 
be available for such journeys with the full protection of compensation for delays to end 
to end journeys. ATOC note that if passengers engage in ‘split ticketing’ in order to pay a 
lower fare, it is reasonable for operators to treat their journeys as separate journeys, and 
not to pay compensation as if the journey is being taken on a through ticket. 

131 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 3: STAKEHOLDERS AFFECTED 

Stakeholder 

Description 

Key interests 

Citizens/Rail 
passengers  

Passengers 
those 
including 
with  disabilities  or 
reduced  mobility 
(PRMs)  who  use 
rail transportation  

Railway industry  

their 

industry 
staff 

Railway 
and 
(Railway 
undertakings - RUs, 
station 
and 
infrastructure 
managers - IMs)  

The  Regulation  EC  1371/2007  aims  to 
improve the attractiveness of rail passenger 
transport  and 
its  market  functioning.  It 
relates  to  passengers  in  general  but  also 
provides  for  PRMs.  It  ensures  a  minimum 
level  of  protection  for  all  rail  passengers 
across the EU and enhances social inclusion 
of PRMs.  
All the policy options suggested aim to more 
transparent  and  strengthened  rights  for  rail 
passengers.  However,  passengers  will  have 
to  cope  with  a  potential  reduction  of 
compensation  payments  in  cases  of  "force 
majeure".  However,  all  their  rights  notably 
to  assistance,  care,  reimbursement  and  re-
routing  remain  unchanged  in  case  of  force 
majeure events. 

Railway  industry  and  their  staff  will  have  to 
comply  with 
requirements, 
the  new 
especially  on  services  which  are  currently 
exempted.  This  will  lead  to  an  increase  of 
the  costs  of  compensation  and  the  costs  of 
assistance  resulting  from  the  removal  of 
exemptions. The measures directly targeting 
the  RUs  relating 
the  provision  of 
to 
information  on  passenger  rights  and  the 
provision  of 
in 
accessible formats to PRMs, will increase the 
RUs'  operating  costs  notably  in  view  of 
already  existing  requirements  for  accessible 
information  under  Article  8  (2)  of  the 
Regulation. 

information  available 

Apart  from  provisions  increasing  RUs  costs, 
some are aiming at reducing RUs' economic 
burden.  The  removal  of  the  burden  of 
compensation  to  be  paid  to  passengers  for 

132 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
delays of more than 1 hour caused by "force 
majeure"  events  will  positively  affect  the 
business  model  of  RUs  and  their 
level 
investments.  This  means  an  overall  cost 
saving 
these 
for  compensation  under 
events.  

Burden  sharing  with  other  stakeholders 
through  a  clarification  of  RUs'  and  third 
parties'  responsibilities  and  obligations  in 
situations  of  severe  transport  disruption 
through  contingency  planning  will  also  limit 
the cost for RUs. Also, the clarification of the 
notion  of  ‘carrier’  will  release  some  of  the 
obligations of the RUs.  

give  RUs 

Lastly, the introduction of a right to redress 
claim 
the 
will 
compensation 
from  third  parties  when 
delays and cancellations are caused by their 
fault or negligence. 

right 

to 

National 
Authorities (NEBs) 

National 
authorities 
responsible  for  the 
enforcement of the 
passenger 
rail 
rights Regulation in 
the Member States 
(National 
Enforcement 
Bodies (NEBs)) 

The National authorities will have to enforce 
the new requirements.  

The  main  factor  impacting  on  the  Member 
States'  budget  will  be  the  requirement  for 
national  authorities  to  share  the  burden 
with RUs for the assistance to passengers in 
case  of  major  disruptions  (i.e.  ensuring 
contingency 
mobility 
planning).  The  details  of  how  to  implement 
this  requirement  will  however  be  left  to 
Member States.  

continuity 

and 

in 

the 

roles 

clarification  of 

and 
The 
responsibilities  of  NEBs 
complaint 
handling  and  cooperation  among  NEBs  in 
cross-border  issues  will  directly  affect  their 
working  modalities.  Reinforced  rights  and  a 
better  awareness  of  passengers  of  their 
rights  might  also  lead  to  an  increase  in 
complaints to NEBs. The measure related to 
through 
ticketing  would  not  have  an 
additional impact on NEBs workload. On the 

133 

 
 
 
 
 
 
one  hand,  it  will  increase  the  number  of 
cases  where  compensation  and  assistance 
will  be  granted;  on  the  other  hand  it  will 
clarify  the  cases  concerned,  simplifying  the 
work of NEBs. 

The introduction of a "force majeure" clause 
could  lead  to  more  conflicts  between  RUs 
and  passengers,  where 
increased  NEB 
intervention might be solicited.  

134 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 4: IMPACT ASSESSMENT TOOL METHODOLOGY 

Introduction 
The  purpose  of  the  assessment  tool  is  to  quantify  the  impacts  arising  from  each  of  the 
options for comparison. The assessment has been undertaken in the ’IA Tool‘, an excel 
spreadsheet.  A  number  of  input  assumptions  have  been  required  to  carry  out  the 
assessment, particularly in relation to the estimation of the impact of the measures, and 
these have been consolidated on a specific sheet of the ‘IA Tool’.  

The analysis of impacts covers the baseline scenario and all six policy options (PO). The 
key economic and social benefits and costs are captured quantitatively at a level of detail 
consistent with the available data. Other impacts are quantified where evidence suggests 
there  are  sufficient  material  and  data  available  to  enable  quantification,  otherwise  they 
were treated qualitatively. 

All  costs  and  benefits  are  summarised  over  the  15-year  period  of  2020-2035  and  Net 
Present Values are calculated based on the social discount rate. All policy measures are 
compared against the results of the baseline scenario. Cost and benefits at EU level are 
calculated for EU-26. 

The methodology used to assess the options involves a number of steps: 

identification of impacts that may be assessed quantitatively,  

 
  development of the baseline position; 
 
 

estimation of the impact of each of the relevant measures; and, 
calculation of the impacts for each of the options. 

The  quantitative  assessment  has  been  undertaken  based  on  the  difference  between  the 
baseline scenario and each of the options and the impacts have been assessed over a 15-
year  period.  In  the  absence  of  robust  evidence  to  support  the  input  assumptions,  the 
validity  of  the  results  is  checked  via  a  number  of  sensitivity  analyses  that  assesses  the 
effect of variation in the input assumptions on the results.  

Policy measures assessed in the IA Tool 

Provided a scarcity of reliable data to build on reliable assumption, the IA Tool is restricted to 
the  assessment  of  the  impacts  linked  to  the  introduction  of  four  main  categories  of  policy 
measures (PM), which are summarised in the following Table: 

  Exemptions; 
 
 
  PRM Accessibility.  

‘Force Majeure’; 
Informing Passengers; and 

Table 1 - Measures assessed in the IA Tool 

PM 

ID 

Description 

Yes  No 

1. 

Require printing of information on tickets 

1 

0 

135 

 
 
 
PM 

ID 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

Description 

Yes  No 

Require notices at stations in prominent positions (as in air 
passenger rights) 

Require  notices  and/or  announcements  in  trains  regarding 
passengers rights 

Reduce  the  exemptions  for  urban,  suburban  &  regional 
services 

Remove possibility to exempt cross border urban, suburban 
and regional services in the EU 

Remove the exemptions to domestic long distance services 

Require disability awareness training for rail staff 

Introduce  a 
(compensation) 

force  majeure  clause 

for  article  17 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Source: SDG (2016), Impact Assessment exercise concerning a possible revision of regulation (EC) No. 1371/2007 on 
rail passengers' rights and obligations (IA tool)  

The  introduction  of  the  measures  in  the  tool  is  binary.  So,  whenever  a  measure  is 
analysed, it takes the value "1" otherwise "0".  

Assessment  of  Impacts  from  Introduction  of  Measures  Related  to  Informing 
Passengers (IN) (PM1-PM4) 

To  assess  the  impact  of  implementing  informing  passengers'  measures,  it  is  assumed 
there  is  a  relationship  between  the  number  of  compensation  claims  and  the  level  of 
awareness  amongst  passengers  with  regards to  their  eligibility  to  compensation  when  a 
journey is delayed.  

The  Special  Eurobarometer  420  survey  report  includes  data  on  the  proportion  of 
passengers in each Member State who are aware  of their ability to  make  compensation 
claims;  however,  it  does  not  provide  data  on  the  proportion  of  passengers  who  make 
compensation  claims  when  services  are  delayed.  Responses  from  two  separate  surveys 
conducted in the UK include data on the proportion of rail passengers who are aware of 
their  ability  to  make  claims  and  the  proportion  of  the  same  passengers  who  make 
compensation claims when their journey is  delayed. The change in  levels of awareness 
and  claims,  and  the  ratio  between  the  two,  in  the  UK  surveys  are  shown  in  the  table 
below. 

136 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2 - UK Compensation awareness and claims ratio 

Survey 

Awareness 

Claims 

Elasticity 

Opinion Leader 

Which? 

Change 

18% 

36% 

18% 

11% 

34% 

23% 

78% 

Source: SDG (2016), Impact Assessment exercise concerning a possible revision of regulation (EC) No. 1371/2007 on 
rail passengers' rights and obligations (IA tool)  

The  awareness/claims  elasticity  calculated  from  the  two  UK  surveys  is  used  to 
extrapolate  the  relationship  between  awareness  and  claims  in  all  other  Member  States. 
Any increase in the level of awareness arising from the IN measures is assumed to lead to 
a proportionate increase in claims based on the awareness/claims elasticity. 

The  implementation  measures  are  assumed  to  raise  the  level  of  awareness  in  each 
Member  State  to  the  level  of  the  UK  (36%).  The  UK  has  already  implemented  actions 
contained within the IN measures and therefore is assumed that the level of awareness in 
other Member States will rise to a similar level when the measures are implemented. As 
the  IN  measures  are  a  package,  the  net  impact  of  all  four  IN  measures  is  considered 
together. 

Assessment of Impacts from the Introduction of Exemptions (EX) (PM5-PM8) 

To assess the impact of implementing each of the exemption (EX) measures, an increase 
in journeys is estimated, in each Member State for each of the four journey types, which 
will no longer be exempt from providing compensation to passengers on delayed services 
based  on  the  information  the  Commission  holds  on  where  exemptions  are  currently 
applied. 

Impact on Compensation Costs 

The  increase  in  non-exempt  journeys  in  each  Member  State  is  then  multiplied  by  the 
proportion  of  delayed  services  and  the  proportion  of  claims  on  delayed  services  to 
calculate  the  increase  in  compensation  claims  to  determine  an  uplift  in  compensation 
paid  to  passengers.  The  proportion  of  claims  on  delayed  services  is  calculated  by 
estimating an average claims per delayed service and adjusting this average by Member 
State for the level of rights awareness in each Member State.  

The  increases  in  compensation  payments  in  monetary  terms  are  calculated  by  applying 
the percentage increase in claims to the base level of compensation payments. The base 
compensation  payments  are  assumed  to  grow  throughout  the  assessment  period  in  line 
with non-exempt journeys in each Member State. 

Impact on the Cost of Assistance (refreshments) 

The  increase  in  cost  of  assistance  payments,  arising  from  the  implementation  of  EX 
measures,  has  been  calculated  using  the  same  method  as  the  increase  in  compensation 
payments.  However  as  passengers  automatically  receive  cost  of  assistance  on  delayed 

137 

 
 
 
 
 
services,  payments  apply  on  all  delayed  non-exempt  journeys,  as  opposed  to  only  the 
proportion on which passengers make claims. 

The UK Rail Regulator (ORR) estimated the cost of assistance per passenger as part of 
an  impact  assessment  into  the  implementation  of  Passengers’  Rights  Regulation,  to  be 
approximately €3 per affected passenger, and this has been adjusted by PPP to estimate 
the  cost  by  Member  State.  The  cost  of  assistance  reported  in  the  Finland  case  study  is 
similar to the estimate made by ORR adjusted for PPP and therefore supports the ORR 
estimate. The base cost of assistance in each Member State has been built up using the 
proportion of services delayed more than 60 minutes (calculated as described above), the 
number of non-exempt journey and the cost of assistance per passenger.  

Assessment  of  Impact  from  introduction  of  PRM  Training  Accessibility  measure 
(PM13) 

To  assess the  impact  of  implementing  the  PRM accessibility  (PR)  measure,  the  cost  of 
PRM training per staff member is assumed to be based on the cost of training courses for 
customer-facing staff serving disabled customers in the UK. This cost has been adjusted 
for PPP to estimate the costs in other Member States. The number of employees working 
for  RUs  and  IMs  in  Europe  was  sourced  from  the  Cost  and  Contribution  of  Rail  study 
(Steer Davies Gleave on behalf of the Commission158) and assumptions have been made 
as to the proportion of staff that will initially require training to conform to any changes 
in the Regulation and as well as the proportion requiring training per year thereafter. 

Assessment of Impacts from introduction of a ‘Force Majeure’ clause (PM 26) 

To assess the impact of implementing the ‘Force Majeure’ measure, the rail industry is 
assumed  to  no  longer  pay  compensation  to  passengers  when  delays  are  caused  by  a 
‘Force Majeure’ event. The total level of compensation paid is therefore reduced by the 
proportion of total delays that are due to ‘Force Majeure’ events.  

Austria,  Italy  and  Poland  provided  the  levels  of  compensation  paid  to  passengers  as  a 
result  of  ‘Force  Majeure’  events  and  these  figures  have  been  used  in  the  tool  for  these 
three  Member  States.  In  all  other  Member  States,  it  is  assumed  that  the  proportion  of 
compensation  payments  that  are  due  to  ‘Force  Majeure’  events  is  equivalent  to  the 
proportion of delay minutes in the UK that are due to ‘Force Majeure’ events up to max 
17%). It should be noted that as with other input assumptions described in this document, 
a  sensitivity  analysis  has  been  carried  out  on  this  proportion.  Compensation  paid  to 
passengers  due  to  ‘Force  Majeure’  events  grows  throughout  the  assessment  period 
proportionally with total compensation costs. 

158 

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/modes/rail/studies/doc/2015-09-study-on-the-cost-and-contribution-of-the-rail-

sector.pdf 

138 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Impacts and Metrics 
Implementing  each  of  the  set  of  measures  described  above  leads  to  changes  in  the 
following: 

  Passenger demand; 
  Mode share;  
  Compensation costs; 
  Force majeure costs; 
  Costs of assistance; 
  PRM training costs. 

Table 3 –Impacts and Metrics  

Metric 

Units 

Total Type 

Passenger 
Welfare 

Compensation Costs 

Force Majeure 

Cost of Assistance 

PRM Training Costs 

€m 

€m 

€m 

€m 

NPV 

NPV 

NPV 

NPV 

Source: SDG (2016), Impact Assessment exercise concerning a possible revision of regulation (EC) No. 1371/2007 on 
rail passengers' rights and obligations 

Passenger Demand 

The change in passenger kilometres (PKM) is calculated, for each journey type in each 
Member State arising from changes to fare levels, using demand elasticities and guidance 
provided  in  the  UK’s  passenger  demand  forecasting  handbook  (PDFH).  It  should  be 
noted  that  while  the  guidance  included  in  PDFH  has  been  developed  based  on  the  UK 
rail  market, it includes  the  results  of  research  related to  the adjustment of  the  provided 
elasticities for journeys where fare levels are significantly lower and this has been used 
when estimating the change in demand in each Member State. 

Passenger Welfare 

Compensation and Cost of Assistance Payments 

To calculate base compensation costs, data on the number of compensation claims made 
by rail passengers have been used and the total cost of compensation payments provided 
by  Austria  and  Finland as  part  of  the  consultation  exercise.  This  data  has  been  used  in 
combination  with  data  on  the  reliability  of  passenger  services  and  annual  passenger 
journeys to calculate average compensation paid per claim on eligible journeys. 

For  the  rest  Member  States  who  did  not  provide  any  data  as  part  of  the  consultation 
exercise,  the  level  of  compensation  payments  was  extrapolated  by  using  data  on 
reliability,  passenger  journey  numbers  and  purchasing  power  parities  (PPP).  The 
reliability  data  has  been  adjusted  using  the  profile  of  delays  in  six  Member  States 
(Belgium, Bulgaria, Germany, Italy and Lithuania) to account for delays greater than 60 
minutes.  The  number  of  claims  per  service  delayed  longer  than  60  minutes  was 
calculated  by  combining  the  adjusted  reliability  data  for  Austria  and  Finland  with  the 

139 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
number of successful claims made in these Member States adjusted for rights’ awareness 
(data  was  not  available  from  other  Member  States  to  do  the  same).  The  amount  of 
compensation  paid  per  successful  claim  was  similarly  calculated  based  on  the  data 
provided  by  Austria  and  Finland  and  adjusted  by  purchasing  power  parities  (PPP)  for 
each  Member  State.  Finally,  the  base  compensation  level  was  arrived  at  by  combining 
the  estimates  for  compensation  paid  per  successful  claims,  the  number  of  successful 
claims per delayed service and the number of delayed services.  

Force majeure costs 

Please see the relevant analysis under the "Measures assessed in the IA Tool" as well as 
"Assumptions and data resources". 

PRM training costs 

Please see the relevant analysis under the "Measures assessed in the IA Tool" as well as 
"Assumptions and data resources". 

140 

 
 
 
 
 
Data Sources and Assumptions  
Inputs  and  assumptions  used  to  estimate  the  impact  of  the  measures  have  been  taken 
from  a  variety  of  sources  such  as  publicly  accessible  data  and  studies;  the  consultation 
exercise; and input assumptions.  

Publicly accessible databases 

Publicly  accessible  databases  (such  as  Eurostat,  Worldbank,  EU  website,  stakeholders' 
websites,  CER  publications,  publicly  available  websites,  eurobarometers  on  passenger 
rights,  etc.)  have  been  used  to  obtain  statistics  regarding  passenger  demand  and  mode 
share. Some further inputs have been sourced from publicly available sources including 
the average carbon emissions per passenger kilometre (European Environment Agency), 
carbon  price  per  tonne  (European  Commission)  and  Purchasing  Power  Parity  (PPP)  by 
Member  State  (Eurostat).  Additionally  previous  studies  by  Davies  Gleave159  have  been 
used to source the required data.  

Consultation exercise 

Stakeholders including railway undertakings (RUs), national enforcement bodies (NEBs) 
and umbrella organisations (e.g. CER, EIM) were asked to provide data for a number of 
metrics that would be useful in assessing the aforementioned impacts. However, due to a 
number  of  factors  including  commercial  sensitivity  and a  lack  of  records,  much  of  this 
data was unavailable. For example, many RUs do not keep records of delays specifically 
due to force majeure events as they see no reason to do so given the current regulation. 
Thus, the consultation exercise in particular resulted in patchy and incomplete data that 
did not lend itself well for direct use in the IA Tool. However, the data obtained has been 
used  in  a  number  of  places  to  establish  inputs,  as  described  in  the  section  below, or  to 
support some rationale. Data provided in response to the consultation has only been used 
in a small number of instances as described below due to the incompleteness of the data 
provided.  It  should  be  noted  that  further  attempts  were  also  made  to  return  to 
stakeholders  to  fill  data  gaps,  however,  these  attempts  were  largely  unsuccessful  as  it 
appeared stakeholders either did not keep records of the requested data or were unwilling 
to provide the data due to commercial sensitivity. Due to the lack of robust evidence, a 
number of assumptions are made in the Tool. Sensitivities have been carried out on all of 
these assumptions to assess the impact of variation on the results. 

Input assumptions 

Passenger demand and mode share 
Eurostat data has been used as the primary source for passenger demand160 (both in terms 
of journeys and passenger-kilometres). Gaps have been identified in a small number of 
places (detailed further in the tables presented later in this chapter). In general, either data 

159  http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/rail/studies/doc/2015-09-study-on-the-cost-and-contribution-of-the-rail-

sector.pdf 

160 Comparison of passenger demand data in the PRIME-TREMOVE model and Eurostat indicates that demand on metro and tram 

systems is not included in the Eurostat data. 

141 

 
 
 
                                                 
from previous years or the EU average has been used to fill these gaps. Eurostat data has 
also been used to establish the base mode share by Member State. 

Data  from  the  UITP  regional  and  suburban  railways  analysis  market  update  has  been 
used in conjunction with the data provided by the Community of European Railway and 
Infrastructure Companies (CER) to split the passenger demand data by journey type. The 
UITP  data  only  includes  the  split  by  Member  State  between  Urban,  Suburban  and 
Regional  and  other  demand  and  the  EU  wide  average  split  between  domestic  long 
distance  and  international  demand  provided  by  CER  has  been  used  to  disaggregate  the 
latter two journey types.  

For  the  passenger  demand  forecasts,  the  PRIMES-TREMOVE  model  2016  reference 
scenario  has  been  used  in  conjunction  with  the  splits  by  journey  type  assumed  in  the 
Fourth  Railway  Package  Impact  Assessment  undertaken  by  Steer  Davies  Gleave  to 
produce  a  passenger  demand  forecast  at  the  EU-level  by  journey  type.  The  PRIMES-
TREMOVE  model  also  includes  a  forecast  of  mode  share  by  Member  State  which  has 
been used in the ‘IA Tool’. It should be noted that all impacts are forecast to grow in line 
with the growth in passenger demand. 

Split of demand by journey type 

Eurostat provides data on the spilt between national and total passenger demand in each 
Member  State,  which  has  been  used  to  calculate  the  level  of  international  passenger 
demand.  A  UTIP  study  provides  a  split  between  regional  and  long  distance  services 
which has been used to calculate the level of domestic long distance and urban, suburban 
and regional journeys in each Member State. 

Compensation Costs 

The number and value of compensation claims were estimated based on data provided by 
Member States and data on punctuality and reliability161 of rail services by journey type 
was  extracted  from  the  Steer  Davies  Gleave  study  ‘The  Price  and  Quality  of  Rail 
Services‘162.This  has  been  used  as  the  basis  for  the  proportion  of  services  delayed  or 
cancelled by Member State and journey type. Austria and Finland provided data on the 
number of successful (satisfied) compensation claims made by rail passengers. This has 
been  used  in  combination  with  data  on  the  reliability  of  passenger  services  and  annual 
passenger  journeys  to  develop  an  average  claims  per  eligible  passenger  journey  which 
has been used to estimate the number of claims in Member States who did not provide 
the  data.  Similarly,  data  provided  by  Member  States  on  the  value  of  compensation  per 
claim  has  been  used  along  with  the  distribution  of  purchasing  power  parities  (PPP)  to 
estimate the compensation per successful claim in Member States that have not provided 
this data. The Eurobarometer Survey 420 conducted in 2014 included a question on EU 

161  Punctuality  and  reliability  data  were  not  used  as  a  proxy  for  passenger  service  quality  or  passenger  welfare,  as  there  is  no 
indication  of how punctuality  and  reliability will  change  as  a  result  of  the  changes  to  the regulation.  We  are  able  to  use  it  in 
estimating  the  impact  on  compensation  as  the  changes  arise  from  removal  of  exemptions  and  information  measures,  both  of 
which have a measureable impact on the number of successful compensation claims that are likely to be made. 

162 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/rail/studies/doc/2016-04-price-quality-rail-pax-services-exec-summ.pdf  

142 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
rail  passengers’  awareness  of  their  rights  and  this  has  been  used  as  the  base  level  of 
passenger awareness used in estimating the impact of information provision measures on 
compensation claims.  

Compensation Costs due to "force majeure" events 

Generally, respondents to the consultation exercise noted that they do not keep specific 
records of compensation claims related to ‘Force Majeure’ events. However, the number 
of  approved  compensation  claims  resulting  from  ‘Force  Majeure’  events  and  the  total 
value  of  these  claims  has  been  provided  by  a  number  of  Member  States  along  with 
similar data for all compensation claims. The data represents a very broad range of "force 
majeure" incidents in the EU, which varies from ‘the vast majority’ to less than 1.25% of 
delays.  These  discrepancies  are  largely  caused  by  the  different  definitions  applied  by 
Member States. To ensure a common minimum level of treatment among Member States 
and  to  limit  at  maximum  the  negative  impact  on  passengers  the  concept  of  "force 
majeure" for the purpose of this IA was defined restrictively so that only clearly defined 
and  very  rare  situations  can  qualify.  This  definition  was  limited  only  to  heavy  floods, 
earthquakes,  volcanic  eruptions  and  very  heavy  storms  (known  as  'Acts  of  God'). 
Considering  the  data  provided  by  UK  and  assuming  an  equal  probability  of  "force 
majeure" occurrence across Member States, it is assumed that less than 17% of all delays 
of  more  than  1  hour  across  the  EU  are  caused  by  such  circumstances.  Based  on  this 
information,  it  is  assessed  that  depending  on  the  year  in  question  the  level  of  force 
majeure  incidents  could  reach  a  maximum  of  17%  -  20%  of  all  delays  exceeding  one 
hour.  Therefore,  the  model  accounts  the  level  of  force  majeure  as  17%.  This  has  been 
multiplied  by  the  amount  of  compensation  paid  by  Member  States  to  calculate  the 
compensation related to ‘Force Majeure’ events paid by Member States.  

Therefore,  the  proportion  of  total  compensation  paid  to  passengers  on  delayed  services 
caused by ‘Force Majeure’ events is assumed to be 17.0%. The data from Austria, Italy 
and Poland have been used for the estimation of ‘Force Majeure’ payments.  

Exemptions 

Article 2 of (EC) Regulation 1371/2007 sets of the scope and timescales of exemptions 
that  may  be  applied.  It  allows  Member  States  to  grant  domestic  long  distance  services 
exemptions from the Regulation for a maximum of 15 years from the date the Regulation 
came into effect, meaning exemptions to these services will have to be removed by 2024. 
It has been assumed that the effects of this will be realised over a two year period leading 
up  to  2024,  as  we  expect  operators  to  begin  making  adjustments  to  comply  with  the 
Regulation  leading  up  to  the  removal  of  exemptions.  The  assumed  decrease  in  exempt 
passenger journeys arising from each exemption measure, and the journey types to which 
they apply, are shown in the Table below.. 

143 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 5 - Exemption measures decrease in exempt journeys 

A/A 

Measure 

Decrease 
in  Exempt 
Journeys 

Urban, 
suburban 
and 
regional 

Domestic 
Long 
Distance 

Internati
onal 

Extra
-EU 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

Reduce  the  exemptions  for  urban, 
suburban & regional services 

100% 

Remove  possibility  to  exempt  cross 
border 
and 
urban, 
regional services in the EU 

suburban 

100% 

Remove the exemptions to domestic 
long distance services 

100% 

limit  to  number  of  times 
Apply 
exemptions 
for  services  with  a 
significant part outside of EU can be 
renewed 

50% 

Source: SDG (2016), Impact Assessment exercise concerning a possible revision of regulation (EC) No. 1371/2007 on 
rail passengers' rights and obligations 

Measures  PM  6-8  are  explicit  about  which  journey  types  they  apply  to  and  state  all 
exemptions  will  be  removed;  therefore  exempt  passenger  journeys  were  assumed  to 
decrease by 100% on relevant journey types as a result of these measures. 

Measure  PM  9  applies  only  to  Extra-EU  journeys,  and  while  we  have  made  an 
assumption on the effect of this, the aggregation of extra-EU and intra-EU international 
journeys  means  this  does  not  currently  result  in  any  impacts.  Measure  5  applies  to  all 
journeys and is unlikely to lead to a large reduction in exempt passenger journeys as the 
measure  only  includes  guidance  and  exchange  of  best  practise;  it  is  therefore  assumed 
exempt  passenger  journeys  will  not  bring  substantial  effects  with  a  decrease  only  by 
10%. 

Staff Training on Disability Awareness  

It  is  assumed  that  30%  of  staff  working  in  the  rail  industry  is  facing  customers.  The 
proportion of staff requiring training in year 1 is likely to be high. The proportion of staff 
requiring training annually represents the turnover of staff 10% (new staff who join will 
need to be trained) as well as re-training where necessary.  

144 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 6 - PRM Staff proportions 

% of Staff 

Proportion of Staff 

Proportion  of  Customer  Facing  Staff  in 
Rail Industry 

Proportion  of  Staff  Requiring  PRM 
Training in Year 1 

Proportion  of  Staff  Requiring  PRM 
Training annually 

30% 

80% 

10% 

Source: SDG (2016), Impact Assessment exercise concerning a possible revision of regulation (EC) No. 1371/2007 on 
rail passengers' rights and obligations 

These  proportions  are  estimates  as  robust  evidence  was  not  available  to  support  this 
during  our  research.  The  stakeholders  during  the  consultation  process  apart  from  some 
general  statements  that  they  have  PRM  training  in  place  could  not  provide  any  hard 
evidence with this regards.  

Costs borne by RUs vs IMs 

The assumed proportion of increased operating costs increases borne by RUs and IMs are 
shown below. 

Table 7- RU- IM operating cost split 

Measure Area 

Railway Undertaking % of Cost 

Infrastructure Manager % of Cost 

Exemptions 

Force Majeure 

Informing Passengers 

PRM Accessibility 

100.0% 

100.0% 

100.0% 

25.0% 

- 

- 

- 

75.0% 

Source: SDG (2016), Impact Assessment exercise concerning a possible revision of regulation (EC) No. 1371/2007 on 
rail passengers' rights and obligations 

For all measures relating to exemptions, ‘Force Majeure’ and informing passengers, we 
have assumed all costs are borne by RUs, as these measures all relate to delayed services 
for which RUs must compensate passengers. The majority of PRM accessibility costs are 
assumed  to  be  borne  by  IMs  (see  Table  7,  75%),  as  IMs  generally  are  responsible  for 
managing stations, where the majority of PRM accessibility investment will be required.  

145 

 
 
 
 
 
Informing Passengers 

The UK and Germany have been used as a benchmark for the level of awareness arising 
from  implementation  of  measures  relating  to  informing  passengers  in  Member  States 
with  a  lower  base  level  of  Passenger  Awareness.  Some  of  the  measures  relating  to 
increased information for passengers relating to compensation are already in force in the 
UK  and  Germany,  and  these  Member  States  consequently  have  a  higher  level  of 
awareness as recorded in the Eurobarometer Survey. 

For  example,  it  is  known  that  awareness  levels  are  reported  at  46%  in  Germany  where 
DB  distribute  compensation  claim  forms  to  passengers  affected  by  service  disruptions 
which loosely correspond to the strongest measure with regards to informing passengers 
of their rights. Similarly, many operators in the UK make announcements to passengers 
at stations and on trains that are delayed instructing them on how to claim compensation 
and some also hand out compensation claim forms when such events take place.  

Given  the  above,  it  has  been  assumed  the  implementation  of  measures  relating  to 
informing  passengers  will  increase  awareness  to  36%-  the  level  in  the  UK-  as  this  is 
more  likely  than  the  higher  46%  level  of  awareness  in  Germany  and  the  evidence 
provided to support the use of the UK as a benchmark was stronger163.  

Phasing of impacts and measure introduction year 

It  is  assumed  the  Regulation  comes  into  force  in  2020  and  there  is  no  period  during 
which  the  impacts  of  the  regulation  are  gradually  phased  in;  therefore  all  impacts  are 
fully  realised  in  the  year  the  regulation  is  introduced.  The  exception  to  this  is  in  the 
Baseline,  it  is  assumed  that  the  impact  of  cessation  of  all  domestic  long  distance 
extensions will be realised over a two year period prior to 2024 as it is highly likely that 
the  industry  will  begin  to  prepare  for  the  cessation  of  exemptions  prior  to  when  they 
expire.  

Proportion of urban, suburban and regional (USR) Journeys to include 

It is assumed 90% of USR journeys are under 1 hour and therefore the regulation will not 
apply  to  them.  Limited  data  is  available  on  passenger  demand  on  metro  systems; 
however  desk  research  suggests  a  large  proportion  of  USR  one-way  trips  are  typically 
less than 1 hour.  

Proportion of rail demand abstracted by air and road 

The proportion of passenger kilometres abstracted by air and road, for each journey type, 
is based on data provided in the UK national travel survey.  

163  Requirements  for  the  measures  currently  implemented  in  relation  to  informing  passengers  on  delayed  services  are  set  out  in 

franchise agreements in the UK while only anecdotal evidence was available from Germany. 

146 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Data sources and input in the IA Tool 

The tables below summarise the availability of data and provide further details on the use of the input data within the ‘IA Tool’. It should be noted that 
the use in calculations are broken down into steps where a data input has been used to develop an intermediary dataset (e.g. the proportion of passenger 
journey delays more than 5 minutes by Member State is used to calculate the proportion of passengers delayed more than 60 minutes by Member State 
which is in turn used to calculate the number of compensation claims by Member State – all steps of this calculation have been included in the tables 
below).   

Table 8 - Data availability - general metrics 

Description 

Availability  Source(s) 

Notes 

Use in calculations 

Passenger 
journeys 
by 
Member State 

Passenger 
kilometres  by 
Member State 

of 

Split 
passenger 
journeys  and 
kilometres  by 

Available 

Eurostat164 

In the case of Belgium, the average across the 
EU has been used. 

Used throughout  

Available 

Eurostat165 
World Bank / 

/ 

Data from the World Bank has been used to fill 
in some gaps in the Eurostat data.  

Used throughout 

Available 

Eurostat 
UITP166 

/ 

Eurostat  data  (referenced  in  the  last  two 
items)  includes  some  breakdown  by  journey 
for  both  passenger  kilometres  and 
type 
journeys. However, the data does not include 
a  split  of  national  passenger  kilometres  and 

Used throughout 

164 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Evolution_rail_passenger_transport_2013-2014_(1000_passengers).png 

165 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Passenger_transport_statistics 

166 http://www.uitp.org/regional-and-suburban-railways-market-analysis-update 

147 

 
 
 
                                                 
journey types 

Passenger 
transport 
modal 
share 
and passenger 
demand 
forecasts 

PKM  growth 
rate 

UITP data has been used to split USR and long-
distance passengers. 

No identified data gaps. 

Used throughout 

Available 

PRIMES-
TREMOVE 
Transport Model 

Available 

4REP Forecasts 

Forecast EU-wide PKM growth by journey type 

Application  of 
exemptions 

Available 

European 
Commission 
website 

Data availability – sanctions and compensation 

No identified data gaps. 

Used throughout 

Description 

Availability  Source(s) 

Notes 

Use in calculations 

of 
Number 
passenger  journeys 
affected 
by 
delays/cancellations 

Incomplete  Desk research / 
RUs  /  NEBs  / 
CER  /  Study  on 
the  Price  and 
Quality  of  Rail 
Services (SDG) 

Five RUs and NEBs (BE, BG, DE, IT & 
LT)  provided  data  on  the  proportion 
of services delayed by more than 60 
minutes. 

Data  obtained  through  consultation 
and desk research was sourced from 
Steer  Davies  Gleave’s  Study  on  the 

MS proportion of services delayed by 60 minutes =  

𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑑𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 > 60𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑠
𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑑𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 > 5𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑠
× 𝑀𝑆 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑑𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦
> 5𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑠 

148 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Price and Quality of Rail Services for 
the  proportion  of  services  delayed 
more than 5 minutes by MS. This is a 
complete data set. 

The two were combined to estimate 
an average relationship between the 
proportion  of services delayed more 
than  5  minutes  and  the  proportion 
delayed more than 60 minutes based 
on  those  MS  for  which  both  data 
points were available. This was then 
applied to the proportion of services 
delayed by more than 5 minutes for 
the 
all  other  MS 
proportion delayed by more than 60 
minutes. 

to  estimate 

Limited  data  is  publicly  available  on 
passenger 
on  metro 
demand 
systems;  however  desk  research 
suggests  USR  one-way  trips  are 
typically under 1 hour.  

The estimate of compensation claims 
by  MS  has  been  built  up  using  a 
combination  of  the  level  of  claims 
reported  by  Finland  and  Austria, 
delayed  services  (discussed  above) 

149 

Incomplete  Desk research 

Proportion 
Urban, 
and 
journeys 
than 1 hour 

of 
Suburban 
Regional 
shorter 

Number 
successful 
compensation 
claims 

of 

Incomplete  RUs  /  NEBs    / 
CER 

Assumption  used  to  factor  Urban,  Suburban  and 
Regional 
journeys  eligible  for  compensation  as 
journeys shorter than one hour are highly unlikely to 
incur delays more than an hour. 

Average  claims per delayed journey =  

𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 # 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑖𝑚𝑠 (𝐴𝑇 & 𝐹𝐼)
𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑑𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑑 𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑒𝑠 (𝐴𝑇 & 𝐹𝐼)

 
 
 
 
 
and rail passengers’ rights awareness 
levels 
the 
Eurobarometer survey. 

reported 

in 

An  “average”  level  of  claims  per 
delayed  service  has  been  developed 
for  Finland  and  Austria.  This  has 
been  multiplied  by  the  proportions 
of  delayed  services  and  eligible 
journeys  for  each  MS  and  then 
factored  for  rights  awareness  levels 
to arrive at the estimated number of 
claims by MS. 

Complete 

Eurobarometer 
/ ORR 

No identified data gaps.. 

Passenger 
awareness  levels  of 
rights 
to 
compensation 

Passenger 
awareness-
compensation 
claims elasticity 

Incomplete  ORR  /  Which? 
Supercomplaint 

Value 
compensation paid 

of 

Incomplete  RUs  /  NEBs    / 
CER 

Data  available  for  UK  only  for  two 
points 
lieu  of  more 
In 
in  time. 
this  has  been 
complete  data, 
extrapolated  and  applied  across  the 
EU 

The number of compensation claims 
and  amount  of  compensation  paid 
reported by Finland and Austria have 
been  used  to  develop  an  average 

150 

MS compensation claims = 

𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑖𝑚𝑠 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑑𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑑 𝑗𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑛𝑒𝑦
× 𝑀𝑆 # 𝑜𝑓 𝑑𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑑 𝑗𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑛𝑒𝑦𝑠

×

𝑀𝑆 𝑟𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡𝑠 𝑎𝑤𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙
𝐴𝑇 & 𝐹𝐼 𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑎𝑤𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙

to  calculate 

increased 
the 
Used 
(passengers’’  rights)  information  provision  on  the 
proportion of passengers claiming compensation 

impact  of 

to  calculate 

Used 
increased 
(passengers’’  rights)  information  provision  on  the 
proportion of passengers claiming compensation 

impact  of 

the 

Average compensation paid per claim = 

𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑝𝑎𝑖𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝐴𝑇 & 𝐹𝐼
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 # 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑖𝑚𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝐴𝑇 & 𝐹𝐼

 
 
 
 
 
 
level  of  compensation  paid  per 
claim. This has been adjusted for PPP 
to  develop  an  estimate  of  the 
compensation paid per claim by MS. 

The PPP adjusted compensation paid 
per  claim  has  been  combined  with 
the  number  of  claims  by  MS 
(described  above)  to  estimate  the 
level of compensation currently paid 
by  MS,  noting  any  data  provided 
directly  by  RUs/NEBs  has  been  used 
to overwrite this. 

The same limitation as that noted for 
the estimate of the number of claims 
above  applies  here.  That  is  that  the 
average  compensation  paid  per 
claim  is  based  on  only  two  data 
points.  PPP  adjustment  has  been 
used to mitigate this. 

It is assumed that compensation will 
grow 
line  with  passenger 
kilometres. 

in 

Information  is  available  from  ORR 
and CER on the recommended value 
of  assistance  (for  refreshments,  etc) 
and  the  level  of  delays  by  journey 

151 

Cost  of  providing 
assistance in case of 
delays 

Available 

Desk research  

MS compensation paid per claim = 

𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑝𝑎𝑖𝑑 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑖𝑚 (𝐴𝑇 & 𝐹𝐼)

×

𝑀𝑆 𝑃𝑃𝑃
𝐴𝑇 & 𝐹𝐼 𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑃𝑃𝑃

MS  compensation  paid    (if  not  directly  provided  by 
MS) =  

𝑀𝑆 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑝𝑎𝑖𝑑 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑖𝑚 

× 𝑀𝑆 𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑖𝑚𝑠 

to 

calculate 

Used 
cost  of  assistance 
the 
(refreshments)  by  taking  the  number  of  journeys 
delayed  and  multiplying  by  the  cost  per  passenger 

 
 
 
 
 
 
type at the EU level respectively.  

assistance is provided to 

It is assumed that the same voucher 
value will be issued across the EU. 

Proportion of delays 
due 
Force 
to 
Majeure events 

Incomplete  RUs / NEBs 

Limited  data  was  provided  by  RUs 
and  NEBs  on  the  proportion  of 
from 
delayed 
Force  Majeure  events.  Extrapolation 
and/or  assumptions  will  be  required 
to fill in data gaps. 

resulting 

journeys 

Used  to  calculate  the  reduction  in  compensation 
paid  due  to  the  introduction  of  a  force  majeure 
clause in the Regulation 

Data availability – PRM training and facility costs 

Description 

Availability  Source(s) 

Notes 

Use in calculations 

PRM 
costs 

training 

Incomplete  Desk 

research 

Some  data  has  been  sourced  on  the  costs  of  a 
for  staff  assisting 
generic 
disabled person in the UKs.  

training  course 

Used  to  calculate  the  annual  cost  of  providing 
staff training. 

of 

Number 
customer 
facing  staff  on 
stations 
(require  PRM 

Incomplete  Cost 

& 
Contribution 
of Rail study 
(SDG)167 

Data is available on the number of employees in 
the  European  Rail  sector  by  Member  State. 
Assumptions  are  made  as  to  the  proportion  of 
staff who require PRM training per year. 

Used  to  calculate  the  annual  cost  of  providing 
staff training. 

167 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/rail/studies/doc/2015-09-study-on-the-cost-and-contribution-of-the-rail-sector.pdf 

152 

 
 
 
                                                 
training) 

Data availability - operating costs and fare level metrics 

Description 

Availability  Source(s) 

Notes 

Use in calculations 

IM 
and 
RU 
operating costs 

Available 

Passenger 
Revenue  

Available 

& 
Cost 
Contribution 
of Rail study 
(SDG) 

Data  was  available  for  2013  and  the  10  year 
CAGR  has  been  used  to  arrive  at  operating 
costs168  for  2014.  Splits  between  RUs  and  IMs 
are  based  on  the  EU  average  where  the  study 
did not uncover sufficient evidence of the split. 

Cost 
& 
Contribution 
of Rail study 
(SDG) 

Data  was  available  for  2013  and  the  10  year 
CAGR  has  been  used  to  arrive  at  revenue  for 
2014. 

Average 
levels 
kilometre 

fare 
per 

Available 

Rail  Pricing 
study (SDG) 

Data  based  on  a  sample  of  representative 
station-station pairs from each member state 

Segmentation  differs  slightly  from  that  used  in 
the current study. Assumptions have been made 
long-
to  map  the  segmentation;  domestic 

168 See footnote Error! Bookmark not defined. for comments on taxonomy of costs 

153 

Used  as  the  base  upon  which  the  change  in 
operating costs are calculated 

The  impact  on  costs  has  been  assessed  in 
relation  to  base  costs  to  determine  whether 
increased  costs  are  likely  to  significantly  affect 
margins.  Additionally  the  majority  of  services  in 
the  EU  operate  under  PSO  agreements;  this  is 
unlikely to have much bearing on viability of RUs 
to operate. 

Used  to  determine  fare-demand  elasticities  for 
MS other than the UK and as a base upon which 
the change in fare levels are calculated 

 
 
 
                                                 
Fare-demand 
elasticities 

Available 

distance and urban and suburban and regional in 
the current study are mapped to fares for inter-
city 
journeys  <300km  and  regional  services 
under 100km respectively. 

Passenger 
Demand 
Forecasting 
Handbook 

Elasticities for leisure trips <32km (20 miles) and 
non-business  trips  >32km  (20  miles)  used  for 
USR  and  long-distance  journeys  respectively. 
Elasticities  adjusted 
fares 
according  to  PDFH  guidance.  PDFH  is  designed 
for use in the UK rail sector. 

for  PPP-adjusted 

Used to reflect the impact of the change on fares 
on passenger demand 

Data availability – environmental impacts 

Description 

Availability  Source(s) 

Notes 

Use in calculations 

Historic 10-year CAGR used to project emissions  Used to calculate carbon emissions (mass) 

Includes  forecasts  in  5  year  intervals,  linear 
profile assumed between intervals 

Used to calculate carbon emissions (price) 

Specific 
CO2 
emissions  per 
pax-km 

Available 

Traded  carbon 
costs per tonne 

Available 

European 
Environment 
Agency 

EU 
Reference 
Scenario 

2016 

Energy, 
transport 
and 

GHG 

154 

 
 
 
emissions 

Trends 
2050 (EC) 

to 

Source: SDG (2016), Impact Assessment exercise concerning a possible revision of regulation (EC) No. 1371/2007 on rail passengers' rights and obligations 

155 

 
 
 
Results of the Tool 
Baseline Scenario 

The current situation and what it is likely to be in the future without any intervention has 
been  assessed  and  used  to  develop  the  Baseline.  Any  assumptions  made  as  part  of  the 
development of either the baseline or the modelled options reflect available data taking 
into account the specificities of the European rail sector. The net result of these elements 
is that the ‘status quo’ has largely been maintained in the baseline, barring the impact of 
exemptions for domestic long distance services ceasing by 2020. It should be noted that 
the  status  quo  includes  increasing  costs  to  the  industry  due  to  improved  access  to 
information  and  improvements  to  PRM  accessibility  resulting  from  PRM-TSI.  The  key 
metrics  in  the  baseline  are  shown  in  the  paragraphs  below.  The  numbers  presented  in 
Table 9 represent the total amount for every metric in a period of 15 years, 2020-2035. 
Also, all the Tables presented in this section illustrate a print-out form of the results of 
the tool.  

Table 9- Results baseline scenario 

The analysis in the IA report is based on the first package of metrics under the passenger 
welfare  analysis.  The  estimations  are  based  on  the  data  for  the  RUs  costs  paid  for 
compensation to passengers, compensation to passengers including the component of the 
compensation costs linked to the Force majeure events, costs for assistance and costs to 
train  their  staff  on  disability  awareness.  For  the  analysis  purposes,  it  was  assumed  that 
these RUs costs are translated into passengers' welfare in the sense that the compensation 
and  the  assistance  received  by  the  passengers  (including  PRMs)  increase  passengers 
welfare.  

In order to be able to compare the different scenarios on an equal basis, all the metrics 
are presented in NPV. Taken into consideration that 2020 will be the year of adoption of 
the Regulation, the analysis of the results are presented for the period 2017-2035169. 

Below, is presented the configuration of the basic metrics used for the analysis in the IA 
report  as  it  is  expected  to  be  formed  under  option  2A  during  the  period  under 
consideration.  

Passenger demand (passenger kilometres) and journeys 

Figure 1- Passenger demand (in pkm) 

169  For presentational  purposes,  starting  point on  the  Figures  is  2017.  However,  the  analysis  is  carried  out  for a  period  of 15  years 

2020-2035. 

156 

MetricUnitsTotal TypeBaselinePassenger WelfareCompensation Costs€mNPV3,172Less: Force Majeure€mNPV-Cost of Assistance€mNPV363PRM Training Costs€mNPV-3,535 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
s
e
r
t
e
t
m
o

l
i
k
r
e
g
n
e
s
s
a
P

l
i

a
R

650.000

600.000

550.000

500.000

450.000

400.000

Source: Commission calculations based on impact assessment tool in SDG (2016), Impact Assessment exercise 
concerning a possible revision of regulation (EC) No. 1371/2007 on rail passengers' rights and obligations 

More  than  50%  of  demand  originates  from  Germany,  France  and  the  UK.  Passenger 
demand is expected to grow by an annual average of 1.8% between 2015 and 2035 with 
much  of  this  growth  occurring  in  2020  -  2030.  It  is  estimated  that  the  increasing 
availability of high speed services and the implementation of the fourth railway package 
will lead to this increase being reflected more heavily in international and domestic long 
distance  services.  A  breakdown  of  the  annual  growth  rates  used  in  the  Impact 
Assessment Tool as shown in Table 10 -  below. 

Table 10 - Average annual growth in passenger rail demand 

Period 

Total demand  Urban, 

Suburban  and 
Regional 

Domestic  Long 
Distance  

International 

2015-2020 

1.6% 

2020-2025 

2.0% 

2025-2030 

2.1% 

2030-2035 

1.3% 

1.6% 

1.7% 

1.6% 

1.1% 

1.7% 

2.0% 

1.8% 

1.2% 

2.4% 

2.9% 

2.7% 

1.8% 

The split between urban, suburban and regional, domestic long distance and international 
passenger  demand  and  journeys  are  illustrated  in  Table  below.  As  there  was  little  data 
available  on  the  split  between  intra-EU  and  extra-EU  international  demand  and  what 
little  data  that  was  available  suggested  extra-EU  demand  was  smaller  by  several 
magnitudes, attempts have not been made to split the two. 

Table 11 - Passenger demand and journey splits by journey type 

Journey type 

% of passenger kilometres  % of passenger journeys 

157 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Urban, 
regional 

suburban 

and 

84.9% 

Domestic long distance 

9.4% 

International 

5.8% 

89.0% 

9.3% 

1.7% 

Compensation Costs 

Figure 3:- Compensation paid to passengers  

)
V
P
N

(
)

m
€
(

t
s
o
c
n
o
i
t
a
s
n
e
p
m
o
C

225

175

125

75

25

Source:  Commission  calculations  based  on  impact  assessment  tool  in  SDG  (2016),  Impact  Assessment  exercise 
concerning a possible revision of regulation (EC) No. 1371/2007 on rail passengers' rights and obligations 

Figure 4: Cost of assistance  

)
V
P
N

(
)

m
€
(
e
c
n
a
t
s
i
s
s
a
f
o
t
s
o
C

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

Source:  Commission  calculations  based  on  impact  assessment  tool  in  SDG  (2016),  Impact  Assessment  exercise 
concerning a possible revision of regulation (EC) No. 1371/2007 on rail passengers' rights and obligations 

158 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PART I – Problems linked to the current application of the Regulation 

Policy options to address issues linked to the scope of the rail passengers legislation 
(exemptions for all passengers) 

Policy scenario A 

Policy scenario B 

Policy scenario C  

 Advancing removal 
of exemptions for 
long distance 
domestic services to 
2020 (PM1); 
 Limit in time 

exemptions for 
services with third 
countries (PM2) 

 Advancing removal of 
exemptions for long 
distance domestic 
services to 2020 (PM1); 
 Limit in time exemptions 
for services with third 
countries (PM2) 

 Removal of exemptions 
for urban, suburban and 
regional services when 
they are cross-border 
services (PM3) 

 Advancing removal of 
exemptions for long 
distance domestic 
services to 2020 (PM1); 
 Limit in time exemptions 
for services with third 
countries (PM2) 

 Removal of exemptions 
for urban, suburban and 
regional services when 
they are cross-border 
services (PM3) 
 Removal of the 

exemptions for urban, 
suburban and regional 
services (PM4) 

Policy scenario A 

The tool is run for policy scenario A with input for the following measures: 

The results are presented in the Table below: 

Table 12 - Results of policy scenario A (compared to baseline scenario) 

159 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  numbers  in  the  Table  represent  the  total  variation  (increase  or  decrease)  of  the 
amount for every metric over a period of 15 years 2020-2035 compared with the relevant 
baseline scenario. Policy scenario A is expected to increase the overall cost for railway 
undertakings by about EUR 1 million for the period of 15 years between 2020 and 2035 
in comparison with the baseline scenario (or increase of 0.031% in compensation costs 
and 0.026% in total costs imputable to the Regulation). 

Policy scenario B 

The tool is run for policy scenario B with input for the following measures: 

The results are presented in the Table below: 

Table 13 - Results of policy measure B compared to baseline scenario 

The  numbers  in  the  Table  represent  the  total  variation  (increase  or  decrease)  of  the 
amount for every metric in a period of 15 years 2020-2035 compared with the relevant 
baseline scenario. Policy scenario B is expected to increase the overall cost for railway 
undertakings by about EUR 5 million for the period of 15 years between 2020 and 2035 
in comparison with the baseline scenario (increase by 0.13% in total costs). This amount 
is  due  to  the  increase  of  costs  of  compensation  resulting  from  the  removal  of  the 
exemptions expected to amount to EUR 4 million (increase by 0.12%) between 2020 and 
2035  compared  to  the  baseline  scenario.  The  increase  of  costs  of  assistance  resulting 
from the removal of the exemptions will amount to EUR 1 million (increase by 0.15%) 
between 2020 and 2035 compared to the baseline scenario. 

Policy scenario C 

The tool is run for policy scenario C with input for the following measures: 

160 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The results are presented in the Table below: 

Table 14 - Results of policy measure C (compared to baseline scenario) 

The  numbers  in  the  Table  represent  the  total  variation  (increase  or  decrease)  of  the 
amount for every metric over a period of 15 years 2020-2035 compared with the relevant 
baseline  scenario.  Policy  scenario  C  is  expected  to  produce  for  the  EU  railway 
undertakings  an  overall  cost  increase  of  about  EUR  1,314  million  (or  34.26%)  for  the 
period of 15 years between 2020 and 2035 in comparison with the baseline scenario. This 
amount is due to the increase of the costs of compensation resulting from the removal of 
exemptions  to  urban,  suburban  and  regional  services  and  would  amount  to  EUR  1,259 
million (or by 39.69%) between 2020 and 2035 compared to the baseline scenario. The 
removal  of  exemptions  to  urban,  suburban  and  regional  will  increase  the  costs  of 
assistance  to  EUR  55  million  (or  by  8.29%)  between  2020  and  2035  compared  to  the 
baseline scenario. 

Policy options to address issues linked to PRM rights 

PRM rights are applicable on all services 

Policy scenario B  

 Regulatory provision on the application of the RPM rights (PM 10 H) 

Due  to  lack  of  data  specifically  for  PRMs,  data  for  all  passengers  are  used  in  order  to 
give an estimate of potential costs of policy measures targeting PRMs. The exemptions 
on  provisions  related  to  PRMs  are  part  (%)  of  the  general  set  of  exemptions  discussed 
above, concerning all passengers (Annex 5 Tables A2 & A3). For analytical reasons, the 

161 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
structure of the exemptions for all passengers is followed. In that case, the provisions for 
PRMs  that  can  currently  be  exempted  (Articles  19-25)  refer  to  all  services  (including 
urban, suburban and regional services). As a result, the scenario for the PRM exemptions 
follows the policy scenario C when exemptions for all passengers are concerned (Table 
14). The tool is run for policy scenario B: 

In the estimations above for exemptions of articles related to the rights of all passengers, 
articles  19-25  which  concern  PRMs  are  included.  In  addition,  compensation  and 
assistance  costs  are  related  to  the  number  of  passengers  who  are  entitled  to  these  (i.e. 
PRMs).  According  to  the  report  of  the  World  Health  Organisation  (WHO)170 
approximately  16.6%  of  the  EU  population  has  some  form  of  disability.  Taken  into 
account that according to the Eurobarometer survey on passenger rights of 2014171, 7% 
of respondents had requested assistance either for themselves or for another person, one 
could assume that the costs for railway undertakings for applying the relevant provisions 
will  be  around  9.3%  of  the  costs  for  all  the  provisions  exempted.  The  results  are 
presented in the Table below: 

Table 15- Results of policy scenario B compared to baseline scenario 

The above assumptions lead to the conclusion that the costs for railway undertakings are 
low  for  regulatory  provisions  on  the  application  of  the  PRM  rights.  The  increase  in 
compensation  cost  is  expected  to  be  EUR  113.3  million  between  2020  and  2035 
compared  with  the  baseline  scenario,  notably  because  PRM  provisions  will  then  be 
mandatory on all services, including on urban, suburban and regional services. Still, this 
is an increase of only 3.56% for compensation costs. If guidelines are chosen to promote 

170 World Health Organisation (WHO), 2012 

171 http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_420_en.pdf 

162 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
the  application  of  the  PRM  rights,  due  to  their  non-binding  character,  fewer  railway 
undertakings are expected to apply them, leading to an incremental cost increase (much 
less than 3.56%). 

Information provisions for PRMs  

 Journey information is accessible to all PRMs (PM5) 
 Information on passenger rights is accessible to all PRMs (PM6) 

Policy scenario B  

In  the  absence  of  data  about  the  costs  for  railway  undertakings  and  station  managers 
regarding the potential compensation they will need to pay to passenger rights for PRMs 
with all kinds of disabilities, it is assumed that the compensation cost will be either equal 
or  less  than  the  compensation  cost  to  all  passengers.  (For  compensation  paid  to  all 
passengers  due  to  improved  information,  please  see  the  analysis  below  in  the  section 
"information provisions for all passengers"). Even if the compensation costs for railway 
undertakings  to  PRMs  were  100%  of  their  compensation  costs  for  all  passengers,  the 
financial burden for railway undertakings is still low in the course of the 15 year period. 
The tool is run for policy scenario B: 

The results are presented in the Table below: 

Table 16 - Results of policy scenario B compared to baseline scenario 

The  numbers  in  the  Table  represent  the  total  variation  (increase  or  decrease)  of  the 
amount for every metric in a period of 15 years 2020-2035 compared with the relevant 
baseline  scenario.  Based  on  the  data  estimated  by  the  tool  for  the  provision  of 
information for all passengers, it could be argued that an increase of maximum EUR 28 
million  in  compensation  costs  is  expected  between  2020  and  2035  compared  with  the 
baseline scenario. 

163 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sensitivity Analysis 

The  sensitivity  analysis  is  made  to  examine  the  effects  of  a  decision  if  the  preferred 
policy  scenario  B  for  information  provisions  for  PRMs  accompanies  policy  scenario  C 
for exemptions for PRMs. For this reason, the tool is run for both, the preferred policy 
scenario B for information provisions for PRMs and policy scenario C on exemptions for 
PRMs  to  check  if  there  are  any  changes  in  the  expected  costs.  The  same  reasoning  is 
followed all over for the section on PRMs. All the assumptions made for every scenario 
are kept here and the tool is run again for both scenarios at the same time.  

The results are presented in the Table below: 

Table 17 – Sensitivity analysis  

There are no potential changes on the effects of the final result. The results are the same 
as when policy scenarios are analysed separately.   

Assistance for PRMs at the stations and on board trains  

Policy scenario B  

 Require disability awareness training for rail staff (PM8) 

The tool is run for the policy scenario B: 

164 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The results are presented in the Table below: 

Table 18 - Results of policy scenario B compared to baseline scenario 

The numbers presented in the Table represent the total variation (increase or decrease) of 
the  amount  for  every  metric  over  a  period  of  15  years  2020-2035  compared  with  the 
relevant  baseline  scenario.  Maintaining  all  other  issues  the  same  as  in  the  baseline 
scenario,  the  possibility  of  increase  in  disability  awareness  training  for  rail  staff  is 
examined. Under this scenario, the cost for the whole rail industry to train their staff on 
PRM issues will provoke an increase of EUR 12 million (0.31% increase in total costs) 
between 2020 and 2035 compared with the baseline scenario. 

Information provisions for all passengers 

Policy scenario  

 Information on rail passenger rights is provided together with the ticket (PM11) 
 Information on passenger rights is provided in stations and on board trains (PM12) 

The tool is run for the policy scenario: 

The results are presented in the Table below: 

165 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 19 - Results of policy scenario B compared to baseline scenario 

An  increase  of  EUR  28  million  in  compensation  costs  is  expected  between  2020  and 
2035  compared  with  the  baseline  scenario,  notably  in  view  of  already  existing 
requirements  for  information  under  Article  8  of  the  Regulation.  This  represents  0.88% 
increase in the compensation costs railway undertakings need to pay and 0.73% in their 
total costs. 

Sensitivity Analysis (policy scenario on information and policy scenario A for 
exemptions for all passengers) 

The sensitivity analysis is made to examine the effects of a decision if the policy scenario 
on information accompanies policy scenario A for exemptions for all passengers. For this 
reason, the tool is run for both, the policy scenario on information and policy scenario A 
for exemptions for all passengers.  

The results of the sensitivity tests are summarised in the Table below: 

166 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 20 – Sensitivity analysis (policy scenario on information and policy scenario A 
for exemptions for all passengers) 

There are no potential changes on the effects of the final result. The results are the same 
as when the policy scenarios are analysed separately.   

Sensitivity Analysis (policy scenario on information and preferred policy scenario B for 
exemptions for all passengers) 

The sensitivity analysis is made to examine the effects of a decision if the policy scenario 
on information accompanies policy scenario B for exemptions for all passengers. For this 
reason,  the  tool  is  run  for  both,  the  policy  scenario  on  information  and  the  preferred 
policy scenario B for exemptions for all passengers.  

The results of the sensitivity tests are summarised in the Table below: 

Table 21 – Sensitivity analysis (policy scenario on information and preferred policy 
scenario B for exemptions for all passengers) 

167 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
There are no potential changes on the effects of the final result. The results are the same 
as when the policy scenarios are analysed separately.   

Sensitivity Analysis (policy scenario on information and policy scenario C for 
exemptions for all passengers) 

The  sensitivity  analysis  is  made  to  examine  the  outcome  of  a  decision  if  the  policy 
scenario  on  information  accompanies  policy  scenario  C  for  exemptions  for  all 
passengers. For  this reason, the tool is  run for  both,  the policy scenario on information 
and policy scenario C for exemptions for all passengers. 

The results of the sensitivity tests are summarised in the Table below: 

168 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 22 – Sensitivity analysis (policy scenario on information and policy scenario C 
for exemptions for all passengers) 

There are no potential changes on the effects of the final result. The results are the same 
as when the policy scenarios are analysed separately. 

PART II - Policy options addressing the problems linked to "force majeure"  

Narrow definition of "force majeure"  

Policy scenario A 

  Reintroduction of a "force majeure" clause for article 17 (compensation) 
  Narrow definition of "force majeure" where a railway undertaking proves that a 
long  delay  of  more  than  one  hour  is  caused  by  heavy    floods,  earthquakes, 
volcanic eruptions or very heavy storms (known as 'Acts of God)' and which it 
could not have foreseen or prevented even if all reasonable measures had been 
taken. 

The tool is run for policy scenario A with a narrow definition of "force majeure", which 
is restricted to "acts of Gods", and reaches the possibility of occurrence of around 17%: 

The results are presented in the Table below: 

169 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 23 - Results of policy scenario A compared to baseline scenario 

Note: red numbers in parenthesis demonstrate decrease 

The  re-introduction  of  a  "force  majeure"  clause  with  a  narrow  definition  will  bring  a 
saving  of  costs  for  the  railway  undertakings  by  removing  the  burden  of  having  to  pay 
compensation in these situations. The decrease in compensation costs is expected to be 
EUR  562  million,  representing  17.17%  decrease  in  comparison  with  the  compensation 
costs under the baseline scenario and 14.65% in comparison with the overall costs under 
the baseline scenario.  

Sensitivity Analysis (policy scenario A on "force majeure" and preferred policy options) 

The  sensitivity  analysis  is  made  to  examine  the  outcome  of  a  decision  if  the  re-
introduction  of  a  "force  majeure"  clause  with  a  narrow  definition  accompanies  the 
preferred  policy  options.  For  this  reason,  the  tool  is  run  for  both  policy  scenario  A  on 
"force majeure" situations with 17% of occurrence and preferred policy options.  

The results of the sensitivity tests are summarised in the Table below: 

170 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 24 – Sensitivity analysis (policy scenario A on "force majeure" and preferred 
options)
policy 

Note: red numbers in parenthesis demonstrate decrease 

There are only incremental changes on the impacts of the final result. One could argue 
that the results are the same as when policy scenarios are analysed separately. 

Broad definition of "force majeure" situations 

Policy scenario B 

  Reintroduction of a "force majeure" clause for article 17 (compensation) 
  Broad definition of "force majeure" corresponding to situations where a railway 
undertaking  proves  that  a  long  delay  of  more  than  one  hour  is  caused  by 
external factors which would include i. a. severe weather conditions, cable theft 
or  failures,  vandalism,  fatalities  (including  suicides),  terrorist  attacks.  Strikes 
would not be included.  

The tool is run for the policy scenario B with the broader definition of "force majeure" 
beyond "acts of Gods", and reaches the possibility of occurrence of around 41,4%: 

The results are presented in the Table 16 below: 

171 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 25 - Results of policy scenario B compared to baseline scenario 

Note: red numbers in parenthesis demonstrate decrease.   

The re-introduction of force majeure clause with a broad definition is expected to bring 
cost savings for railway undertakings of EUR 1,299 million representing a cost decrease 
in terms of compensation of up to 40.95% in comparison with the baseline scenario and 
33.87% decrease of overall costs in comparison with the baseline scenario. 

Sensitivity Analysis (policy scenario b on "force majeure" and preferred policy options) 

The sensitivity analysis takes place to examine what will be the outcome of a decision if 
the  re-introduction  of  a  "force  majeure"  clause  with  broad  definition  accompanies  the 
preferred  policy  options.  For  this  reason,  the  tool  is  run  for  both  policy  scenario  b  on 
"force majeure" situations with 41.4% of occurrence and preferred policy options.  

The results of the sensitivity tests are summarised in the Table below: 

172 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 26 – Sensitivity analysis (policy scenario B on "force majeure" and preferred 
policy options) 

Note: red numbers in parenthesis demonstrate decrease 

There are only incremental changes on the impacts of the final result. One could  argue 
that the results are the same as when policy scenarios analysed separately. 

173 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 5: COMPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 

Table A1 - Abbreviations 

ATOC 

Association of Train Operating Companies 

EPF 

IM 

European Passenger Federation 

Infrastructure Manager 

EDF 

European Disability Forum 

MS 

Member State 

NPV  

Net Present Value 

PRMs 

Persons  with  Disabilites  or  Reduced 
Mobility 

PPP 

Purchasing power parity 

KVV 

Finish National Enforcement Body 

TraFi 

Finish National Enforcement Body 

VR 

PV 

Finish Railway Undertaking / SM 

Present value 

RUs 

Railway Undertakings 

TFEU 

Treaty on the Functioning of the EU 

TOC 

Train Operating Companies 

UNCRPD  UN  Convention  on  the  Rights  of  Persons 

with Disabilities 

EAA 

European Accessibility Act 

174 

 
 
 
 
Table A2: Exemptions by MS from articles relating to compensation and assistance 

Article 

MS applying 
exemptions for 
domestic long 
distance services 

MS applying 
exemptions for 
urban, suburban, 
regional services 

MS applying 
exemptions for  
third country 
services 

MS applying  no 
exemptions (all 
services) 

17 – Right to compensation 

18  (1)  –  Requirement  to  inform  passengers  in  case  of 
disruption 

18 (2)(a) – provision of meals / refreshments for delays > 
1hr 

18  (2)(b)  –  provision  of  hotel  /  accommodation  where 
delay requires 

18  (2)(c)  –  transport  to  final  destination  where  train 
blocked on track 

18  (3)  –  alternative  transport  if  service  cannot  be 
continued 

18 (4) – requirement for RUs to certify tickets in case of 
delay 

18 (5) – requirement for RUs to pay particular attention 
to PRMs in case of disruption 

11 

8 

11 

11 

9 

8 

8 

9 

15 

12 

16 

15 

14 

12 

14 

13 

8 

7 

8 

8 

7 

7 

7 

8 

8 

10 

8 

9 

10 

10 

10 

11 

Source: SDG (2016), Impact Assessment exercise concerning a possible revision of regulation (EC) No. 1371/2007 on rail passengers' rights and obligations 

 
 
 
Table A3: Exemptions by MS from articles relating to disabled persons and PRMs 

Article 

MS applying 
exemptions for 
domestic long 
distance services 

MS applying 
exemptions for 
urban, suburban, 
regional services 

MS applying 
exemptions 
for  third country 
services 

MS applying  no 
exemptions (all 
services) 

% PRM km 
exempt from 
provisions and no 
equivalent 
domestic 
provision 

20(2)  –  requirement  to  inform  PRM  in 
writing  of  reason  not  to  offer  carriage 
under 19(2) in writing 

21(2) – requirement for RUs and SMs to 
make  all  reasonable  efforts  to  provide 
assistance  at  unstaffed  stations  /  on 
unstaffed trains 

22  –  requirement  for  SMs  to  provide 
assistance  at  stations  to  PRMs  free  of 
charge 

23  –  requirement  for  RUs  to  provide 
assistance  on  trains  to  PRMs  free  of 
charge 

24(a) – requirement for 48 hours’ notice 
to be provided for assistance 

24(b)  –  RUs,  SMs,  ticket  vendors  and 
tour  operators  to  take  all  necessary 

5 

7 

7 

8 

5 

5 

10 

10 

10 

10 

9 

9 

176 

5 

5 

6 

6 

5 

5 

13 

14 

13 

17 

14 

12 

2.5% 

1.2% 

2.6% 

2.8% 

4.8% 

2.5% 

 
 
measures  to  receive  notifications  of 
request for assistance 

24(c)  –  RUs  and  SMs  to  make  all 
reasonable efforts to assist PRMs in case 
of no notification being given 

24(d) – RUs and SMs to designate areas 
at  which  PRMs  can  announce  their 
arrival  at  a 
station  and  request 
assistance 

24(e) – PRMs to present themselves at a 
time  stipulated  by  RU/SM,  which  may 
than  60  min  before 
not  be  more 
departure 

25 – compensation in respect of mobility 
equipment, with unlimited liability 

5 

5 

5 

6 

9 

9 

9 

10 

5 

5 

5 

6 

12 

14 

14 

12 

2.0% 

4.8% 

2.5% 

2.4% 

Source: SDG (2016), Impact Assessment exercise concerning a possible revision of regulation (EC) No. 1371/2007 on rail passengers' rights and obligations 

177 

 
 
 
 
 
Table A4 – Contingency Planning measures in Member States 

Austria 

The Austrian railway undertaking[i] stated that several measures are in place to cater for events of service disruption such as provision of 
rail  replacement  buses;  carriage  by  other  means  of  transportation,  alternative  routes  or  alternative  trains;  compensation  for  costs  of 
accommodation (where necessary); refreshments and snacks; and fair dealings as special customer service. With respect to terrorism threat, 
ÖBB  has  elaborated  communication  strategies  in  cooperation  with  the  Ministry  of  Transport.  As  an  example,  press  releases  are  being 
prepared  for  different  levels  of  threat  and  issued  to  the  media  once  a  specific  threat  level  has  been  reached.  ÖBB  and  the  Ministry  of 
Transport are seeking to find a balance between increasing the awareness of the public, and not creating unnecessary concerns amongst 
passengers. 

We have been assured that contingency plans exist for major incidents and that these reflect excellent collaboration between all agencies 
concerned. There has been much focus on this issue this year due to the terrorist attacks. 

Much of the assistance is given by 18 mobile ‘B for You’ teams. As has been noted above, sometimes assistance is refused subsequent to 
being agreed initially because these staff are not available. PRM organisations also complain that, even when this has not happened, on 
occasions, the assistance does not show up at all. In that case, there is no contingency plan. This is a particular concern when it affects 
connections between trains. 

Belgium 

SNCB, speaking as both station manager and railway undertaking, told us that it has extensive plans for emergencies and that  there is a 
legal obligation for this to be the case, though it is not possible to provide details of their contents. 

There is collaboration at the highest level between all agencies involved in major incidents. Clearly this has been put to the test in Brussels 
this year in the face of terrorist attacks. 

The  BDF  and  the  CSNPH  complain  that,  in  general,  information  provision  during  disruption  by  all  methods  is  poor  and  needs 
improvement. They also complain that information is not systematically accessible for people with a disability. For instance, sometimes, 

178 

 
 
                                                 
 
 
passengers only get visual information, sometimes only spoken messages. 

Bulgaria 

There  are  contingency  plans  and  communication  plans  for  handling  emergencies.  Recently,  plans  for  changes  of  legislation  concerning 
terrorist attacks and prevention are proposed and are expected to be adopted by the end of this year. 

Czech 
Republic 

No information available. 

DB have contingency plans in place which apply in cases of ‘force majeure’ but also in circumstances caused by the railway undertakings. 
In conjunction with infrastructure manager DB Netz, disposition manuals are made available for operative services. It is described therein 
how  train  operations  can  be  continued  in  case  of  any  restriction  of  the  infrastructure,  or  the  extent  to  which  rail  operations  need  to  be 
reduced. Also other railway undertakings are entitled to take part in such coordinated and common action for passenger transport on the 
same railway line. 

For rail-bound substitute services or additional rail traffic DB holds available standby long-distance trains. These are staffed trains which 
can  be  put  into  service  within  15  minutes.  In  case  no  rail-bound  services  are  possible,  nationwide  framework  contracts  have  been 
concluded with coach operators in order to guarantee rail replacement services. DB established a permanent and nationwide emergency 
service organisation with on-call duty to offer assistance to rail travellers in emergency situations. In case the evacuation of railway lines is 
required, DB can make use of diesel locomotives for hauling trains in case of catenary damage or other disruption to the electricity supply. 

Germany 

In  case  of  unpredictable  events  and  force  majeure  which  could  not  be  mitigated  by  the  measures  in  place,  DB  creates  a  new  timetable 
concept for its long distance services within three days and introduces it in the fastest possible way including providing information on this 
new timetable through its online journey planner (examples are the flood in 2013, and fire of the signal tower in Mühlheim in 2015). 

In  case  of  events  whose  dimensions  can  be  estimated  in  advance,  shadow  planning  will  have  been  undertaken,  allowing  for  the 
introduction of a new timetable within 24 hours (examples are the train drivers’ strike in 2014/2015, and preparations made for expected 
vehicle failures over the winter period). 

Denmark  DSB undertakes contingency planning alongside the Danish police. For security reasons, DSB is unable to share any details of these plans. 

179 

 
 
Estonia 

Elron  has  internal  rules  on  action  to  take  in  cases  when  incidents  occur  –  e.g.  including  the  chain  of  internal  and  external  notification, 
notification to passengers, and action plans for events which may have a major effect on traffic and safety. 

Greece 

No information available on this point 

RENFE informed us that it has updated its contingency plans in June 2016  and all information is captured in the document  Contingency 
Plan RENFE Traveller applies the General Interest Railway Network managed by Adif. 

Plan Counterterrorist, Level 4, was adopted in June 2015 by the Ministry of Interior and includes the RENFE Group. The plan: 

·intensifies preventive and protective measures on trains, stations, workshops, office buildings and other railway facilities; 

·reinforces security at major stations and transport interchanges in order to detect and, if necessary, neutralize or / and reduce the impact; 

·introduces greater control of the places susceptible to hide explosive devices, 

·introduces greater control and monitoring of suspicious individuals ( by the guards themselves and by CCTV and Control Centers); 

Spain 

·restricts access, circulation or transit through certain areas, places or infrastructure; 

·ensures communication throughout the central and territorial structure of the Department for Extreme Surveillance and Control; 

· ensures communication to different security companies working for RENFE Group; 

· ensures constant coordination with the Forces and Security Corps (both state and regional) and forecasts intervention of civil protection 
agencies in rail services (health, civil protection, fire, etc.) ; 

·ensures coordination with other transport operators (metro, buses, etc.) in the same territory; 

ensures greater control of abandoned or lost and found luggage. 

180 

 
 
Finland 

There  is  an  Operations  Centre  and  electronic  handbook  for  force  majeure  situations.  There  are  set  procedures  and  VR  works  with  the 
National Authorities and Police, who can take charge in certain situations. 

SNCF states that there are processes in place to ensure an appropriate and effective reaction in case of disruptions on aspects involving 
different players (e.g. providing assistance food and beverages in stations). However, these processes are not specific to disruptions caused 
by force majeure. It advises us that this does not mean that nothing is done to prepare for force majeure incidents. Different measures have 
been taken, especially at European level, which is relevant in many force majeure cases. 

We have obtained information about contingency planning from SNCF: 

At national level: 

There is contingency planning involving the public authorities, which might be considered to relate general to the issue of force majeure. 

More generally, there are contingency plans in place for serious disruption and there are processes in place involving different players to 
ensure  an  appropriate  and  effective  reaction  in  case  of  disruptions  on  aspects  (e.g.  providing  assistance  such  as  food  and  beverages  in 
stations). 

France 

Related to security: 

There are governmental contingency plans both for prevention (Vigipirate) and for reaction in case of a terror attack (Métropirate). They 
are cross-sectoral (transport, health, energy etc.) and they define general rules that are mandatory for SNCF. 

On the basis of these plans, SNCF defines the modalities of implementation of the general rules. This means cooperation with the different 
ministries (transport, interior), with local law enforcement forces, with national defence and national security authorities and of course with 
different partners within the transport system: station manager, infrastructure manager. 

For many years, this had been done along a top-down approach. However, recent attacks and simulation exercises have demonstrated the 
importance and the better effectiveness of a more cooperative approach between public authorities and operators. There is now a trend of 
better cooperation and joint activities to feed in the design of the contingency plans. 

181 

 
 
At EU level: 

The  agreement  reached  by  the  COREPER  on  revision  of  Directive  2012/34  contains  a  provision  to  ensure  that  operators  realise  the 
necessary coordination of contingency plans. 

Railway  undertakings  initiated  a  process  to  regularly  and  systematically  update  the  information  and  contact  details  of  the  operational 
services  in  charge  of  disruption/crisis  management  in  their  counterparts.  This  ensures  that  liaison  points  are  clearly  identified  in  the 
different European companies in order to facilitate cooperation, reactivity and crisis management. The directory also contains information 
regarding contact persons in major airports in case of serious traffic disruptions that could have an impact on both modes. 

To  be  prepared  to  better  cope  with  major  disruptions  affecting  several  modes,  railways  undertakings  also  participate  in  simulation 
exercises (e.g. with EUROCONTROL). 

In case of ‘force majeure’ events HŽPP’s contingency plans provide for: 

substituting rail passenger transport with bus transport; 

Cooperating with HŽ Infrastructure in order to inform passengers and organising bus transport. 

Croatian railways have signed a contract with a security firm for protection of train staff, passengers and assets of the HŽPP. 

Croatia 

Communication protocols are signed between the UNISDR’s National Protection and Rescue Directorate (NPRD) and HŽ Infrastructure. 

Working meetings were held with the General Police Directorate of the Croatian Ministry of the Interior, following which guidelines were 
developed on the procedure in case of detection of suspicious items, as well as a list of police officers within the police departments were 
appointed as responsible for monitoring the general state of railway safety. 

All HŽPP employees are equipped with mobile phones during the performance of services, and are able to timely provide assistance in 
accordance with the relevant rules. 

The railway undertaking has developed contingency plans ("Plan of emergency preparedness”) in case of terrorist attacks or other security 

182 

 
 
threats in the Czech Railways. 

The contingency plan registered under ref. 2535/2015  – KPP dated 30/12/2015 includes an overview of the tasks and measures to cope 
with  emergencies  and  crisis  situations,  including  coordination  of  IRS  (Integrated  Rescue  System),  EU  institutions,  and  bodies  with 
territorial responsibility. 

Security of rail services provided by ČD is also ensured by a number of security services governed by internal guidelines. 

Hungary  Both railway undertakings have contingency plans, however, these are not publicly available. 

Irish Rail has security plans in place which are agreed with police authorities. Weather management plans are also in place to mitigate the 
risks of service disruptions during adverse weather. 

Ireland 

There  is  one  international  service  that  operates  between  Dublin  and  Belfast.  Irish  Rail  indicated  that  it  has  been  the  subject  of  security 
threats  in  the  past  and  contingency  plans  are  in  place  to  respond  to  such  occurrences.  These  include  the  provision  of  alternative  bus 
services when rail services cannot operate. 

Contingency plans for the railway sector are set by the Prefectures and are confidential documents. 

In  the  event  of  traffic  disruption  (both  for  scheduled  events  and  unexpected  events)  contingency  plans  are  implemented  which  are 
developed by the infrastructure manager together with the railway undertakings. 

Italy 

To  address  specific  recurring  series,  specific  emergency  plans  are  prepared  by  Trenitalia.  For  example,  the  ‘snow  emergency  plan’ 
prepared annually together with the infrastructure manager before winter defines roles and responsibilities of the different actors involved, 
as well as identifies on the basis of the network capacity which trains can circulate and which will be abolished (in that case appropriate 
advertisement is provided to customers, e.g. posters in stations, information on the web, etc.). 

In  case  of  unavailability  of  lines/plants,  specific  plans  for  train  deviations  are  developed  which  identify  the  alternative  paths  and  the 
estimated delays. In case of special events, specific plans are prepared together with various stakeholders (infrastructure manager, railway 
undertakings, etc.). 

183 

 
 
Lithuania 

Luxembo
urg 

Latvia 

Trenitalia also has organisational procedures that determine the behaviour to be followed in the occurrence of specific critical situations. 

Contingency  plans  for  the  railway  sector  are  set  by  the  Prefectures  and  are  confidential  documents.  The  FSI  Group  is  implementing 
contingency plans specifically designed for terrorist attacks, which cannot be disclosed because of the sensitive information they contain. 

In  cases  of  events  of  ‘force  majeure’,  a  common  emergency  plan is  followed.  LG’s  Directorate  for  Passenger  Transport  and the  Safety 
Division communicate and work together with the police, as well as medical and fire brigade services. 

Contingency  plans  in  case  of  terrorist  attack  and  traffic  accidents  have  been  developed  by  LG  (Passenger  Transportation  Directorate). 
Timetables of on-call duty responsible employees for coordination of accidents and extreme situations have also been developed. 

No information was made available. 

In  force  majeure  circumstances,  there  are  different  instructions  available  depending  on  the  situation.  Some  of  these  instructions  are 
provided by the infrastructure manager. No further information was provided. 

Latvian  Railways  have  clear  instructions  regarding  how  to  appropriately  inform  the  special  services.  The  infrastructure  manager  is  the 
primary responsible actor in such situations, and is responsible for traffic management and dealing with terrorist attacks. 

NS has contingency plans which nominate points of contact in emergencies. These points of contact are civic organisations, such as the 
police. In The Netherlands, the mayor of any city has the power to take control of the infrastructure, including rail services and stations, in 
the case of an emergency. 

Nether-
lands 

NS is of the opinion that passengers’ rights regulation is not the appropriate basis for regulation on contingency planning, as NS consider 
that  the  regulation  should  be  aimed  at  individual  citizens  and  railway  undertakings,  whereas  contingency  planning  should  be  an  all-
encompassing activity which covers all citizens and companies. 

NS indicated that its contingency plans are a subject of constant discussion with the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment, but 
that these are nonetheless confidential. 

184 

 
 
Where  possible  alternative  transport  can  be  provided  and  where  delays  or  missed  connections  have  occurred,  this  is  the  preferred 
resolution to delays and cancellations. Tickets purchased from Intercity services can be used on any other service in Poland for any delays 
of  over  40  minutes.  This  particular  agreement  is  exclusive  between  Intercity  and  other  operators  although  it  is  likely  that  similar 
agreements exist between the other RUs. 

In case of terrorist attack or other security threats, PKP IC has the following policies and plans in place, all of which are available on the 
company’s internal website. 

· Safety instructions for PKP IC telephone consultants; 

·Regulations on proceeding in case of threat of the terrorist attack (notification of planting/finding an explosive charge on the site 

or the place of business); 

Poland 

·Regulations on proceeding in case of the threat of bioterrorist attack (receiving a suspicious parcel, planting an explosive charge 

with dangerous biologic material); 

·Regulations on proceeding in case of a confirmed threat or after receiving information of a threat; 

·Regulations on proceeding in case of confirmed threat or after receiving information of a threat at the station; 

·Procedure for the train driver after receiving information of the threat on board a train; 

· Procedure for the technical services, including cleaning staff, after receiving information of a threat; 

·Crisis Management Procedure in PKP Intercity S.A.; and 

Procedures for train staff in case of immediate evacuation of passengers’ from the train. 

Portugal 

The  RU  reported  that  contingency  plans  are  in  place  and  concern  all  the  parties  involved,  including  station  managers,  state  authorities, 
NGOs, etc. The plans are in place to limit the disruption for passengers and to assure the quickest and best transport to passenger’s final 
destination in all conditions of safety and security. 

185 

 
 
The National Railway Network has a General Emergency Plan and the operator, CP has specific emergency plans for some of its facilities, 
including rolling stock depots. 

In  addition  there  is  specific  regulation  (ICET  296,  published  by  the  Infrastructure  Manager)  that  stipulates  procedures  and  chain  of 
coordination in case of security threats and emergency situations. 

The national operator has not provided any information regarding the contingency plans for ‘force majeure’ but the Infrastructure Manager 
stated  that  Căile  Ferate  Române  -  CFR  has  a  procedure  for  ‘force  majeure’  situations,  including  the  alert  to  National  System  for 
Emergency Situations. 

The access contract stipulates that CFR and RUs collaborate and share information regarding the expected impacts of the specific ‘force 
majeure’  event.  CFR  has  an  agreement  in  place  with  the  Transport  Police  Department,  which  includes  cooperation  in  case  of  ‘force 
majeure’ situations. 

The  current  interpretation  of  the  ‘force  majeure’  terminology  from  both  the  RU  and  NEB  conflicts  with  the  actual  definition  of  such 
situations in the Standard Access Contract that any operator signs with the Infrastructure Manager. 

Romania 

Nevertheless there seems to be common understanding that events such as extreme heat or snowstorms, which are predictable and affect 
the network each year on specific segments, are treated as force majeure due to their severe negative impact and difficulty of dealing with 
them. 

The Standard Access Contract also exonerates both the Infrastructure Manager and the operator from responsibility for ‘force majeure’ and 
unforeseeable events. 

The infrastructure manager, CFR stated that it has an agreement in place with the Transport Police Department, including the cooperation 
of the Department in case of terrorist attacks. The agreement is confidential and is not available. The operator, CFR Călători stated that it 
also has anti-terrorist prevention action plans for each region. These plans are periodically updated and approved by the Transport Police 
Department. The railway staff and especially the on-board staff are trained accordingly. The institution periodically updates its procedures 
and  maintains  contact  with  the  Romanian  Intelligence  Service  in  order  to  ensure  the  safety,  regularity  and  efficiency  of  the  passenger 
transport. 

186 

 
 
In case of Force Majeure SJ’s operations’ officer is responsible to coordinate tactical meetings with personnel in key positions within SJ. 
SJ also establishes communication with Trafikverket which establishes the restrictions that SJ has to consider during the disruption. 

The contingency plan includes actions on communication, rolling stock, crew, queues and ticket offices. 

In these major disturbances SJ tries to provide staff at the stations that are affected and if needed makes use of an external company for last 
minute staffing needs. 

Sweden 

SJ’s existing contingency plans to handle disruptions can be activated for many different reasons such as low of power, signalling system 
errors or in case of major security issues. 

In case of a terrorist attack, SJ’s Crisis Management Organisation will be activated and they would act in accordance with a contingency 
plan  covering  both  major  safety  and  security  issues.  This  plan  includes  establishing  the  necessary  contacts  with  the  police,  station 
managers, other operators and rescue services. 

In addition, the Swedish Transport Agency stated that the intended scope and requirements of Article 26 (Personal Security of Passengers) 
are unclear. Without clarification and guidance, the Article will continue to have a low impact. 

No information available on this point. 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

Slovenske Železnice does not have contingency plans in case of terrorist attacks or other security threats at the moment. 

Action plans to deal with exceptional/emergency situations – including detailed guidelines as well as crisis management procedures – have 
been developed by ZSSK in cooperation with ŽSR (the infrastructure manager) and the Ministry of Transport, Construction and Regional 
Development, as well as with other public bodies. 

Contingency plans regulate actions to be taken by the responsible subjects in case of critical situations. The competent internal and external 
security units are involved in the plan (e.g. ZSR, the Ministry of Interior, security bodies). 

UK 

Virgin Trains noted that they have contingency plans in place to deal with a wide range of potential situations. An example of this was the 
recent  closing of the Lamington viaduct in  Scotland as  a result of severe winter floods in  Scotland, which forms part  of Virgin  Trains’ 

187 

 
 
mainline route from Glasgow to England. 

In  this  instance,  Virgin recast  the  timetable  with  diversions  in  place,  allowing  for passengers  to  continue using  rail  services  rather  than 
replacement buses. This was advertised extensively, including the impact that the diversion would have on journey times. Virgin stated 
that  contingency  plans  were  always  developed  on  the  basis  of  finding  the  best  way  for  Virgin  Trains  to  fulfil  their  customers’  journey 
requirements. 

ATOC  stated  that  contingency  planning  in  Britain  works  well  and  is  highly  effective.  ATOC  suggested  that  such  planning  seeks  to 
prioritise  the  needs  of  the  passenger  “without  becoming  entangled  in  additional  bureaucracy  EU  intervention  could  result  in”  and  that 
“legislating in this area could create a lack of flexibility and prevent the industry from being as responsive as it needs to be.” 

Virgin Trains stated that they have measures in place with relation to security issues, and have a dedicated safety team for this purpose. 
They were unable to share with us any documentation regarding this due to issues of confidentiality. 

Network Rail were also not able to disclose the precise details of their contingency plans for Security, but did provide some further detail, 
stating that they work very closely with the British Transport Police, local forces, and a wide range of state authorities, where the DfT has 
the policy lead. 

Network Rail confirmed that the Land Transport Security (LTS) team in the Department for Transport is responsible for setting policy in 
relation to counter-terrorist security on: 

· the national rail network; 

·London Underground and other light rail networks; 

·buses and coaches; 

·the Channel Tunnel; and 

·international rail services. 

188 

 
 
Additionally,  LTS  deliver  the  counter  terrorist  security  compliance  programme  for  these  sectors  and  also  for  the  carriage  of  dangerous 
goods  by  rail  and  road. The  objectives  of  the  compliance  programmes  and  the  processes,  principles  and working  practices  followed  by 
inspectors are set out in the Land Transport Security compliance policy framework. 

189 

 
 
 
 
Table A5 - Estimation of delays due to the force majeure 

Railway Undertaking Member State 

FM estimate 

Note 

ÖBB 

Austria 

≈100% of all delays in 2015 

However, according to estimations by ÖBB, only around 1% of delayed services are delayed by 

with 74% increase in compensation payments in 

2013172 

at least one hour, and the large majority of these delays are due to force majeure 
events. 

DB 

Germany 

€16m (2015 which includes cost compensation on 

ticket price, cost of assistance and 
administrative costs 

NTV 

Italy 

€1m in 2015 

DB considers as F.M. events of heavy rainfall, storms, weather fronts, as well as vandalism and 
deliberate damage against railway property and other technical objects and theft of 
security-relevant components (cables, catenary, signal installations etc.) with the 
effect of considerable economic losses.  

NTV stated that this represented 'more than half of delays' (169 / 291). It considers as F.M. 
events such as snow (€202k). lightning (€85k), accident/collision (€115k) 

In 2015, Trenitalia provided about 0.1% of total revenue for compensation and reimbursements 

(a total sum of €3.6 million) 

In 2015, NTV cancelled 111 trains (0.66% of the total). NTV trains subject to delays were 291 

(1.7% of the total) 

CFR Călători  Romania 

5% of the total nb. of services  

Both RU and NEB define F.M. as storm, heavy snowfall, floods, ground slips, extreme heat as 

well as exceptional circumstances such as the refugee crisis in 2015. 

On average, about 1.96 million passengers are affected yearly by delays due to ‘force majeure’ 
events (of which 1,590,000 are on regional trains and 370,000 on long-distance, inter-
regional trains). 

172   The introduction of the case C-509/11 

190 

 
 
 
                                                 
UK 

See Table   Potential scale of delays attributed to force majeure (UK 2015-2016) 

Poland 

force majeure events are uncommon  

1.1 

Discussions  with  both  the  NEB  and  RU  highlighted  that  force  majeure  events  are 
uncommon and those which are classed as force majeure may not strictly be classed 
as acts outside of the control of the railway entities.  

In one example of a tree falling across a line and causing cancellations to services, the event 

was classed as force majeure event by the operator who did not want to pay any 
compensation to passengers for delays. Prior to ECJ ruling in case C-509/11 
compensation was not paid in these circumstances. 

PKP provided the following data Number of claims for compensation under force majeure 

conditions: 

  2014 – 3,028 (18,897 complaints in total) 
  2015 – 4,832 (21,822 complaints in total) 

ČD 

Czech Republic 

64%  

CD estimate that in the period mid 2013 – mid 2016, the number of delayed trains due to F.M. 

has been equal to 1,614, the number of cancelled trains was 2,512 

1.2 

With respect to regularity of F.M. events: 

  Frozen  railways  due  to  bad  weather  conditions  in  winter  (1-2  times  per 

year); 

  Floods (1-2 times per year); 
  Trees fallen on the tracks due to bad weather conditions (10 times per year); 
  Railways workers’ strikes (1-2 times per year) 

State Railway 

Latvia 
Administrat
ion 

There have been some force majeure cases, but 

No complaints have been received regarding force majeure events. The largest problem leading 

these generally did not affect passengers 
rights and the operator would address any 
complaints 

to force majeure events in Latvia surrounds false bomb threats at Riga station. No 
further information regarding the regularity of events was provided. 

191 

 
 
 
 
 
Elron 

Estonia 

24% of delays 

Elron estimate - FM considered to include accidents with cars, collisions with wild animals, 

incidents with passengers, bad weather conditions 

HŽPP 

Croatia 

9% of delays 

In 2014-2015, 218 events occurred, that HŽPP classified as F.M. events. These were exceptional 

events at level crossings; collisions with people; malfunctions of the rail network; 
floods; landslides and mudslides; fires; derailment of railways vehicles; and refugee 
crises in 2015. 

In 2015, the total cost of compensation paid by HŽPP to complainants amounted to 184.23€, an 

average of 15.35€ per complaint 

MÁV 

Hungary 

<1.25% of delays 

According to MÁV-START, the percentage of services delayed or cancelled due to force majeure 

is under 0.1% 

SDG calculation: 8% of services have delays of >15 min. and MÁV reports that <0.1% of all 

services have FM delay. Thus, the % of delays attributable to FM is <0.1/0.08 = <1.25% 

SJ 

Sweden 

9% of delays 

Force majeure events include extreme weather conditions (storms with heavy winds). 

SJ’s financial liability for compensation payments amounted to approximately €900,000 during 

Q4 2015. 

In 2015, 5,475 events with 821,250 affected passengers. 

RegioJet 

Slovakia 

81% of delays 

Service Quality Report (2015):  

- attributes 80% of delays to other causes than the carrier 

- the proportion of delays of <60 min. is around 2% overall (about 2.5% in international 

transport and about 1% in domestic transport) 

Lithuania 

In 2011, 5 trains were affected by unforeseen circumstances, in 2012 30, in 2013 9, in 2014 25 

and in 2015 8. 

192 

 
 
 
 
Ireland 

On average, 12 services are delayed per year as a result of force majeure events. The length of 
delays varies, with most delays of more than 1 hour. Less than 10 services are 
cancelled per year, and a small number of passengers are affected as a result of force 
majeure events. 

Force majeure events include storm damage, security and terrorism alerts, suicides and 

attempted suicides and other non-passenger fatalities and level crossing issues. 

The number of claims received by Irish Rail is “low”, and compensation is only paid to those 

passengers who complain. 

Slovenske Železnice 

Slovenia 

In 2014, one event classified as ‘force majeure’ – the 

There were no service delays/cancellations, but alternative transport services (e.g. buses) were 

line Ljubljana-Koper was closed due to a 
hailstorm 

organised. 

GYSEV 

Hungary 

≈100% of all delays in 2015 

In 2015, 6.38% of GYSEV services were subject to delays exceeding 60 minutes – the large 

increase in the percentage of long delays between 2014 and 2015 is due to the 2015 
international migrant crisis.  

In 2014, only 0.21 of all services were delayed for more than 1 hour.  

Source: SDG (2016), Impact Assessment 

193 

 
 
 
 
Table A6 – Delays above one hour by Member States 

Member State 

Delays above 1 hour 

Austria 

According to estimations by ÖBB, only around 1% of delayed services are delayed by 

at least one hour. 

Belgium (2015) 

International  

60-120 minutes -  0.71 % out of all services  

More than 120 – 0.12 % of all services  

Domestic (all – subject to the Regulation)) 

60-120  - 0.5%  out of all services 

More than 120 – 0.5 % out of all services  

Bulgaria (2015) International in 2015 

60-120 minutes -  4.3% out of all services  

More than 120 – 2.1% of all services  

Domestic long dist. 

60-120  - 2% out of all services 

More than 120 – 0.8 % out of all services  

Regional and suburban (exempt from the Regulation) 

60-120  - 0.5%  out of all services 

More than 120 – 10%  out of all services  

Czech Republic (2015) 

Trains delayed more than 1 hour 

National & international 

1.31% of all services 

Regional 0.09% 

Trains cancelled: 

National & international 

0.5 % of all services 

Regional 0.24% of all services 

Germany 

Denmark 

N/A 

N/A 

Estonia 

No delays of more than 1 h (0.00004% out of all services). 

Greece 

 
 
 
 
Spain (2014) 

Domestic Long Distance173 

60-120 minutes -  0.39% out of all services  

More than 120 – 0.09% of all services  

Medium distance 

60-120 minutes -  0.55% % out of all services  

More than 120 – 0.24% % of all services  

Finland 

France (2015) 

Croatia 

Around 0.8 % of all services covered by the Regulation present a delay of at least of 1 
hour (i.e. 3920 trains delayed by more than 1 hour out of 487 000 journeys 
covered by the Regulation). 

Hungary (2014) 

60-120 minutes -  0.18% out of all services  

More than 120 – 0.03% of all services  

Ireland 

Less than 1% of Irish Rail services are subject to disruption, including long delays 

(delays over an hour) and cancellations. 

Italy 

In 2014, 1% of medium and long distance trains arrived with more than 1 hour delay, 
0.7% were cancelled; 0.8% of international trains had a delay of more than 1 
hour and 1.1% were cancelled while 0.1% of regional trains had a delay of 
more than 1 hour and 2.9% were cancelled. In 2015, NTV cancelled 111 
trains (0.66% of the total). NTV trains subject to delays were 291 (1.7% of 
the total). 

Lithuania (2014) 

International  

60-120 minutes -  5.2% out of all services  

More than 120 – 6.1% of all services  

Domestic (all lines) 

60-120  - 1.4% out of all services 

More than 120 – 0.2 % out of all services  

Luxembourg 

Latvia  

the Netherlands 

173  

‘Domestic Long Distance’ includes conventional trains, High Speed-Long Distance and international trains in national territory. 

195 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Poland (2015) 

60-120 minutes -  0.71 % out of all services  

More than 120 – 0.12 % of all services  

Portugal 

Romania 

At least 5% of the total number of services.  

On average, about 1.96 million passengers are affected yearly by delays due to ‘force 
majeure’ events (of which 1,590,000 on regional trains and 370,000 on long-
distance, inter-regional trains)174. 

Sweden 

Slovenia 

No services were delayed for more than one hour. 

Slovakia (2015) 

Proportion of delays of <60 min. is around 2% overall (about 2.5% in international 

transport and about 1% in domestic transport). 

UK 

See Table, across the UK rail network, on average 3% of services were considered to 
be cancelled or ‘severely late’ (more than 30 min) in 2014-2015. 

174  

In  this  particular  case,  Force  majeure  is  defined  as  storm,  heavy  snowfall,  floods,  ground  slips,  extreme  heat  as  well  as 
exceptional circumstances such as the refugee crisis in 2015. 

196 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
                                                 
Table A7 :Sanction systems by Member State 

Member 
State 

Austria 

No sanctions have been issued 

Sanctions 

Notes 

The  apf  in  its  function  as  NEB  may  review  the operators’  Conditions of  Carriage, but has no  power  to 
supervise their application in practice. This means that legal actions can be taken only if the Conditions of 
Carriage do not comply with the Regulation. If such a violation appears, sanctions can be imposed by the 
Bezirksverwaltungsbehörde  (district  administrative  authority)  in  accordance  with  Article  167  of  the 
Railway Act. 

The Schienen-Control Commission is an independent administrative court headed by a judge. It meets 12 
times a year and decides on issues related to the tasks of the regulatory body as well as those of the apf. 
Since the apf does not have the power to take decisions or to impose sanctions, it notifies the Schienen-
Control  Commission  of  any  infringement.  In  addition,  the  apf  must  inform  the  Schienen-Control 
Commission if a complaint remains unresolved. 

 The Schienen-Control Commission does not have the power to impose sanctions itself. In the case of a 
violation  of  the  Regulation,  the  Schienen-Control  Commission  notifies  the  responsible  district 
administrative  authority  (Bezirksverwaltungsbehörde)  of  this.  The  district  administrative  authority  then 
decides  whether  to  impose  a  sanction,  which  can  amount  to  up  to  €7,200.  However,  the  circumstances 
under which sanctions can be imposed are very limited. 

In  accordance  with  Article  78a  paragraph  5  of  the  Railway  Act,  in  cases  of  complaints  of  passengers 
regarding  a  lack  of  or  insufficient  compensation  for  delays  or  cancellations,  the  Schienen-Control 
Commission can declare the solution proposed by the apf as legally binding, and award a compensation 
payment  to  the  complainant.  In  addition,  the  Schienen-Control  Commission  can  declare  invalid  the 
compensation  arrangements  of  the  railway  undertakings  if  these  do  not  comply  with  the  Regulation. 
Appeals against decisions of the Schienen‐Control Commission have to be directed to the Administrative 
High Court. 

Sanctions  are  always  administrative.  For  a  serious  (3rd  degree)  contravention,  the  sanction  would  be 
between €6,000 and €12,000. 

Belgium  

Only  one  case  since  the  implementation  of  the 
Regulation  has 
to  sanctions.  This  combined 
sanctions  of  €750  related  to  Article  17  and  6,000 
related to Article 27 because of the case being handled 

led 

 
 
 
The level of potential sanctions is generally fixed in the range between €1.000 and € 50 000 for railway 
undertakings and in the range from €1000 to €5000 for infrastructure managers; €100 to €500 for  ticket 
vendors, and €1000 to €3000 tour operators. 

The complaint handling and enforcement process in Germany is an administrative procedure. In the event 
that a complaint is upheld, the NEB can issue a decision which the company is required to comply with; if 
it does not then the NEB threatens to impose a sanction, and if this does not work then a sanction of up to 
€500,000  can  be  levied  in  accordance  with  Article  5a(9)  of  the  General  Railway  Act  (AEG).  The 
sanctioning process halts immediately if corrective measures are taken. 

The  maximum  sanction  the  ABTM  can  levy  is  10,000  DKK  (€1,333).  JBN  can  decide  that  sanctions 
should  be  levied  within  its  competencies,  but  the  scale  of  the  sanction  is  decided  by  the  Danish  courts 
system. The theoretical scale of the sanction is unlimited. 

too slowly. 

Bulgaria 

No sanctions have been issued so far 

Czech 
Republic  

no sanctions have been issued so far 

Germany 

no sanctions have been issued so far 

Denmark 

The  three  instances  in  which  sanctions  were  imposed 
are as follows: 

a RU refused to pay for alternative transport by taxi for 
a  passenger  facing  a  3.5  hour  delay  due  to  a  train 
hitting  a  person.    10,000 DKK  (€1,333)  fine  on  the 
railway undertaking. 

a  RU  sold  a  passenger  a  ticket  which  was  not  the 
cheapest  available,    10,000  DKK  (€1,333)  fine  on 
the railway undertaking. 

a  railway  undertaking  rejected  a  passengers’  request 
for  compensation  in  regards  to  accommodation  and 
taxi costs 10,000 DKK (€1,333) fine on the railway 
undertaking. 

Estonia 

no sanctions have been issued so far 

1.3 

1.4 

CPB has powers to impose both criminal and administrative sanctions.  

According to the Railways Act (Section 73 (1)) in the event of failure to comply with a CPB’s precept, the 
Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications, the Technical Surveillance Authority, the 
Competition Authority and the Consumer Protection Board (CPB) have the right to apply a penalty 
payment in the amount of up to € 3,200 to natural persons and in the amount of up to € 32,000 to legal 

198 

 
 
 
persons (pursuant to the procedure provided for in the Substitutive Enforcement and Penalty Payment 
Act). 

1.5 

Pursuant to Sections from 100.2 to 100.5 of the Railways Act, failure to comply with Articles 8, 13, 16, 
18, 20 or 23 of the Regulation is punishable by a fine of up to 50 fine units (€ 200, since one fine unit is € 
4). The same act if committed by a legal person is punishable by a fine of up to € 3,200. 

Greece 

no sanctions have been issued so far 

1.6 

It can issue administrative penalties in the form of: 

recommendation  for  compliance  to  a  specific  provision  of  law,  with  a  warning  for  penalties  in  case  of 

repetition, and/or 

1.7 

a penalty up to one million euro.  
The nature, the seriousness and the duration of the violation is taken into consideration, when deciding on 
the penalty. The NEB stated that no sanction relating to Regulation 1371 have been issued. 

Spain  

no sanctions have been issued so far 

The Ministry of Public Works and Transport has the power to issue sanctions for violations of provisions 
of  Regulation  (EC)  No.  1371/2007.  There  are  three  levels  of  administrative  sanctions:  very  serious, 
serious and minor infractions. 

Finland 

France  

no sanctions have been issued so far 

no sanctions have been issued so far 

Pursuant to Article L2151-3 of the Code des Transports, breaches of the provisions of Regulation 1371 
may be subject to a fine imposed by the French NEB. The maximum amount of such fines is €15,000, or 
€45,000 for issues related to discriminations against PRM (article 19) and insurance (article 12). 

Croatia 

no sanctions have been issued so far 

The  level  of potential  sanctions  is generally fixed  in  the  range  between  €2.654  and  €13271  for  railway 
undertakings. 

Hungary 7.34 

NKH  has  imposed  several  penalties  for  violations  of 
Regulation  (EC)  No.  1371/2007,  mostly  regarding  to 
information  to  be  provided  to  passengers  during  the 
journey.  

The  maximum  amount  of  the  penalty  is  0.1%  of  revenue  with  a  maximum  threshold  of  15  million 
Hungarian forint – which can be raised up to 25 million HUF (ca. 80,000 EUR) in certain cases. 

199 

 
 
 
 
 
 
According to MAV-START, in 2011 a fine amounting 
to about € 3,000 was imposed three times to the RU . 

Ireland 

no sanctions have been issued so far 

Italy 

The 17 The 17 sanctioning proceedings started to date. 
One is closed in favour of the railway undertaking: 

Information  on  accessibility  and  access  conditions  for 
bicycles.--> €2,500 

Information  to  users  on  procedures  for  submission  of 
complaints.  (Procedure  closed  upon  payment  of 
reduced penalties.)  333.3*4 

Right to refund in case of cancellation of train services 
(Procedure closed upon payment of reduced penalties.) 
 500 

Failure  to  respond  to  a  complaint  (Infringement 
ascertained.) €333.33 

The National Transport Authority is of the opinion that an operator is in breach of the Regulation it can on 
its  own  initiative  or  following  a  complaint  from  a  passenger  issue  request  to  operators  to  submit  an 
improvement plan. If the National Transport Authority is not satisfied that all issues have been addressed 
appropriately by the improvement plan, then it can issue an improvement notice to the operator, directing 
the operator to remedy the alleged breaches of the regulations. If an operator fails to satisfactorily comply 
with the improvement notice, they are deemed to have committed an offence and are liable on summary 
conviction  to  a  fine  not  exceeding  €5,000  or  on  conviction  on  indictment  to  a  fine  not  exceeding 
€150,000. 

Level of sanctions that can be applied to a railway operator for violations of decisions taken by ART as 
10%  of  turnover;  however,  such  a  sanction  could  only  be  applied  in  cases  of  serious  breaches  of  rail 
passengers’ rights in Italy. 

ticket  office/machines  at 

Modalities for purchasing tickets in case of absence of 
the  station,  and 
the 
information 
ascertained) 
€2,500 

users(Infringement 

to 

Lack of response to a complaint(Procedure closed upon 
payment of reduced penalties.)    €333.33 

Lack of response to a complaint(Procedure closed upon 
payment of reduced penalties.)    €333.33 

200 

 
 
Lack of response to a complaint(Procedure closed upon 
payment of reduced penalties.)    €333.33 

Lithuania  

VGI has neither issued any sanction for breaches of the 
Regulation in past years, nor conducted any ex officio 
actions in that field 

In case of violations of provisions relating to train delays, missed connections and cancellations, as well 
as  provision  relating  to  information  and  rights  of  disabled  people  and  PRMs,  the  head  of  the  railway 
company or its designee is subject to an administrative sanction in a range from €289 to €868. 

Luxembourg  no sanctions have been issued so far 

The NEB can issue administrative sanctions of between 500 and 2,000 Euros. 

Latvia  

no sanctions have been issued so far 

there  are  t      Two  cases  where  it  has  the  right  to  impose  sanctions.  These  are  when  an  operator  does  not  provide 
information  and  non-fulfilment  of  State  Railway  Administration  decisions,  which  can  be  made  for  any 
competencies in railway law. The maximum sanction is €14,200. 

The Road Transport Administration can also issue sanctions of €25,000, which can be doubled if repeated 
in one year. 

the 
Netherlands 

One  sanction has been  issued by  the NEB,  and  this is 
currently (as of May 2016) passing through the courts 
in  The  Netherlands.  Details  of  the  sanction,  including 
the  size  of  the  fine,  will  not  be  available  until  this 
process is complete. 

11.30 

The NEB has advised us that it is able to impose unlimited sanctions, although in practice if a sanction 
was disproportionate it could be challenged and reduced by the courts.  

The approach to sanctions in The Netherlands includes the possibility of ‘ratcheting-up’ sanctions, such 
that  the  size  of  the  sanction  can  be  increased  if  the  railway  undertaking  or  station  manager  does  not 
comply within the time limits set by the NEB as part of the sanction. 

Poland  12.38 

By the end of 2014, 21 administrative proceedings had 
been  closed  or  completed  by  the  NEB  and  338 
improvement  notices  were  issued  to  railway  entities, 
this  amounted  to  an  increase  of  25%  on  2013  levels. 
The  NEB  conducted  326  supervisory  activities  during 
2014  relating  to  provision  of  appropriate  levels  of 
quality  and  passenger  safety.  Despite  this  relatively 
high level of intervention by the NEB, since 2011 only 
two 
to 
EC1371/2007,  both  of  which  were  financial  and 
covered by the NEBs Administrative Policy. 

sanctions  have  been  directly 

related 

In both instances, PKP Intercity and Regional Railways 
were found to be in breach of Article 8.2, provision of 

  Punctuality of all the trains within monthly settlement < 85% – for the Task 

  Punctuality of the single train within monthly settlement < 75% 

train 

  Train cancellation without ensuring substitute communication  

Every month
€188409 

Each daily 
€5652 

Each case
€28 

 

Incompliance with quality parameters of the train composition on the starting point (according to 
the minimum quality requirement set out in Appendix 5.1.)  

Each train
7536 

  Lack of designated and marked seats for PRM and for passengers with children under 6   Each 

train 

201 

5652 

 
 
 
 
 
travel  information.  The  combined  fines  for  these 
infringements totalled €42,651, 5% of the total value of 
fines  imposed  by  the  NEB  (€942,415)  between  2011 
and 2015. 

Portugal 

no sanctions have been issued so far 

Romania 

no sanctions have been issued so far 

Sweden 

no sanctions have been issued so far 

Slovenia 

no sanctions have been issued so far 

 

Inappropriate cleanliness of the train  

  Lack of heating in times of low temperatures in compartments or corridors  

  Non-functioning sound system in compartment or corridor  

Each train
4710 

Each coach 
471 

Each train
283 

 

 

Incompliance with any other minimum quality requirement set out in the Appendix No. 5.1 to the 
Framework Agreement  

Each train
565 

Improper behaviour of the train staff contrary to quality requirements set out in the Appendix No 
5 to the Framework Agreement or any other specific regulations of the Company   Each case

€94 

The  level  of  potential  sanctions  is  generally  fixed  in  the  range  between  around  €200  and  €4  400for 
railway undertakings  

If  a  company  or  an  organisation  fails  to  comply  with  the  provisions  in  these  articles,  the  Swedish 
Transport  Agency  can  issue  sanctions.  These  are  in  the  form  of  orders  and  the  organisation  must  take 
necessary  measures  to  fulfil  the  requirements.  The  order  can  be  combined  with  a  fee;  however, 
information regarding the size of fines and payment was not provided. 

The level of potential sanctions is generally fixed in the range between €1,000 and €40,000 for railway 
undertakings  and  in  the  range  from  €500  to  €30,000  for  ticket  vendors,  station  managers  and  tour 
operators. 

1Moreover, in each case in which a sanction is imposed to a RU, ticket vendor, station manager, or tour 
operator, a fine in the range from €250 to €2,500 is imposed on the person responsible for the violation 
within the RU/ticket vendor/station manager/tour operator. 

Slovakia  

no sanctions have been issued so far 

Railway  undertakings  which  do  not  observe  passenger  rights  in  accordance  with  Regulation  (EC)  No. 
1371/2007 can be subject to fines up to € 1,000. 

202 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UK 

no sanctions have been issued so far 

ORR stated that the maximum sanction that could be applied to a railway undertaking would be 10% of 
turnover, and that this would be applied in an instance of a serious breach of contract. Passenger rights 
provisions  form  part  of  the  franchise,  concession  or  open  access  contract,  and  therefore  any  sanction 
would be applied on this basis. 

203 

 
 
 
 
 
Table A8 : Classification of the NR-on-TOC delays used in the UK railway management 

Animal Strike/Incursion not within the control of Network Rail EXT ANIMAL 

Trespass TRESPASS 

Vandalism/theft (including the placing of objects on the line) VANDALS 

Fatalities/ injuries caused by being hit by train FATALITIES 

Level Crossing Incidents XING INCDT 

Police searching line POLICE-RLY 

Security alert affecting Network Rail Network SEC ALERT 

External Power Supply Failure Network Rail Infrastructure EXTL POWER 

Fire external to railway infrastructure EXTL FIRES 

Gas/water mains/overhead power lines GAS/WATER 

Road related - excl bridge strikes/level crossing incident ROAD INCDT 

No Code Desc 

Bridge Strike BDG STRIKE 

Swing bridge open for river or canal traffic BDGE OPEN 

204 

External 

External 

External 

External 

External 

External 

External 

External 

External 

External 

External 

External 

External 

External 

 
 
 
Cable vandalism/theft CABLE CUT 

Level Crossing misuse XNG MISUSE 

Sunlight on signal SUN OBSCUR 

Fire or  evacuation  due to fire  alarm of Network Rail  buildings other than stations due to  vandalism 
NR FIRE 

Other external causes the responsibility of Network Rail EXT OTHER 

Possession over-run from planned work OVERRUN 

Track Patrolling TRK PATROL 

Engineer's train late/failed in possession ENGNRS TRN 

Animal Strike/Incursion within the control of Network Rail ANIMAL 

Trackside sign blown down/light out etc TRACK SIGN 

Engineers on-track plant affecting possession ONTRACK EQ 

Mishap - Network Rail causes INF MISHAP 

Other infrastructure causes INF OTHER 

Safety Issue No Fault Found INF NFF 

External 

External 

External 

External 

External 

Network Management   

Network Management   

Network Management   

Network Management   

Network Management   

Network Management   

Network Management   

Network Management   

Network Management   

Damage to infrastructure caused by on-track machine whilst operating in a possession ONTRK DMG  Network Management   

205 

 
 
Preventative  Maintenance  to  the  infrastructure  in  response  to  a  Remote  Condition  Monitoring  Alert 
RCM ALERT 

Network Management   

ESR/TSR due to cancelled possession/work not completed ESR/TSR 

Network Rail/TRC Staff error STAFF 

Non-maintenance of the 5 metre Flail Strip FLAIL STRP 

Network Management   

Network Management   

Network Management   

Trains striking overhanging branches/vegetation (not weatherrelated) TREE OHANG 

Network Management   

Signals/track signs obscured by vegetation HIDDEN SIG 

Miscellaneous  items  (including  trees)  causing  obstructions,  not  the  result  of  trespass,  vandalism, 
weather or fallen/thrown from trains MISC OBS 

ACI Failures ACI FAIL 

Delayed by signaller not applying applicable regulating policy Regulation 

Network Management   

Network Management   

Network Management   

Network Management   

Signaller, including wrong routing and wrong ETCS/ ERTMS instruction SIGNALLER 

Network Management   

Delayed as a result of Route Control directive NR CONTROL 

Network Management   

ARS software problem (excluding scheduling error and technical failures) ARS 

Network Management   

Formal Inquiry Incident - other operators JOINT INQ 

Network Management   

Fire in station building or on platform, affecting operators not booked to call at that station STN FIRE  Network Management   

206 

 
 
Delay caused by Operating staff oversight, error or absence (excluding signallers and Control) OPTG 
STAFF 

Network Management   

Signal Box not open during booked hours BOX CLOSED 

Technical failure associated with a Railhead Conditioning train RHC FLR 

Delays not properly investigated by Network Rail Mis-invest 

Late start of a RHC RHC 

Failure of TRUST/SMART systems TRUST FLR 

Incorrect Simplifier SIMP ERR 

Delays to other trains caused by a Railhead Conditioning train taking unusually long time in section or 
at a location RHC LATE 

Delays un-investigated Un-invest 

Fire or evacuation due to fire alarm of Network Rail buildings other than stations not due to vandalism 
NR FIRE 

No Code Desc 

Mishap - Network Rail Operating cause NR MISHAP 

Other Network Rail Operating causes OPTG OTHER 

No Code Desc 

Network Management   

Network Management   

Network Management   

Network Management   

Network Management   

Network Management   

Network Management   

Network Management   

Network Management   

Network Management   

Network Management   

Network Management   

Network Management   

207 

 
 
Train schedule error on TSDB WTT schedule WTT SCHED 

Network Management   

Planned engineering work - diversion/SLW not timetabled (outside rules of the route) DIVRSN/SLW  Network Management   

Train schedule error on TSDB STP/VAR service STP SCHED 

Train schedule error on TOPS created schedule, of a serious nature, i.e. incorrect route /conflict with 
normal WTT service TOPS SCHED 

Reactionary Delay to “P” coded Possession PLND LOP 

Simplifier Error Ops Planning OPS S ERR 

Delay accepted by Network Rail as part of a commercial agreement where no substantive delay reason 
is identified TAKEBACK 

Other Network Rail non-Operating causes COMM OTHER 

Unattributed Cancellations UNATR CAN 

Unexplained late start UNEX L/S 

Unexplained Station overtime UNEX O/T 

Unexplained loss in running UNEX L/R 

Telecom equipment failures legacy (inc. NRN/CSR/RETB link) RADIO FLR 

Overhead line/third rail defect OHL/3 RAIL 

Network Management   

Network Management   

Network Management   

Network Management   

Network Management   

Network Management   

Network Management   

Network Management   

Network Management   

Network Management   

Non-Track Assets 

Non-Track Assets 

208 

 
 
AC/DC trip AC/DC TRIP 

Obstruction on OHL, cause of which is not known ON OHL 

OHL/third rail power supply failure/reduction SUPPLY FLR 

Signal failure SIGNAL FLR 

Points failure POINTS FLR 

Track circuit failure TC FAILURE 

Non-Track Assets 

Non-Track Assets 

Non-Track Assets 

Non-Track Assets 

Non-Track Assets 

Non-Track Assets 

Level crossing failure incl. barrow/foot crossings and crossing treadles LEVEL XING 

Non-Track Assets 

Power failure POWER FLR 

Non-Track Assets 

Train Describer/Panel/ARS/SSI/TDM/Remote Control failure PANEL/TDM/FLR 

Non-Track Assets 

Block failure BLOCK FLR 

No Code Desc 

Power Supply cable fault/fire due to cable fault CABLE FLR 

AWS/ATP/TPWS/Train Stop/On-track equipment failure AWS/ATP 

Telephone equipment failure PHONE/SPT 

Token equipment failure TOKEN FLR 

Infrastructure Balise Failure BALISE 

209 

Non-Track Assets 

Non-Track Assets 

Non-Track Assets 

Non-Track Assets 

Non-Track Assets 

Non-Track Assets 

Non-Track Assets 

 
 
HABD/Panchex/WILD/Wheelchex HABD FAULT 

No fault found/HABD/Panchex/WILD/Wheelchex NFF 

Points  failure  caused  by  snow  or  frost  where  heaters  are  fitted  but  found  to  be  not  operative  or 
defective PNT HEATER 

Telecom radio failures IVRS/GSM-R GSM-R FLR 

No Code Desc 

TRTS Failure TRTS FLR 

Axle Counter Failure AXLE FLR 

Non-Track Assets 

Non-Track Assets 

Non-Track Assets 

Non-Track Assets 

Non-Track Assets 

Non-Track Assets 

Non-Track Assets 

ETCS/ ERTMS Equipment Failure (excluding communications link and balises) ETCS FLR 

Non-Track Assets 

Telecom cable failure (transmission sys & cable failures ) COMM LINKS 

Change of Signal Aspects - no fault found ASPECT CHG 

Points failure caused by snow or frost where heaters are not fitted NO PNT HTR 

Earthslip/subsidence/breached sea defences not the result of severe weather EARTHSLIP 

Non severe- Snow/Ice/Frost affecting infrastructure equipment COLD 

Lightning strike against unprotected assets LIGHTNING 

Non-Track Assets 

Non-Track Assets 

Non-Track Assets 

Severe  Weather,  Autumn  & 
Structures 

Severe  Weather,  Autumn  & 
Structures 

Severe  Weather,  Autumn  & 

210 

 
 
No Code Desc 

Critical Rail Temperature speeds, (other than buckled rails) HEAT SPEED 

Swing/lifting bridge failure SWING BDGE 

Flooding not due to exceptional weather FLOODING 

Failure to lay Sandite or operate Railhead Conditioning train as programmed RHC PROG 

Ice on conductor rail/OLE ICE 

No Code Desc 

Adhesion problems due to leaf contamination LEAF SLIP 

Cautioning due to railhead leaf contamination RLHD CONT 

Special working for leaf-fall track circuit operation LEAVES T/C 

211 

Structures 

Severe  Weather,  Autumn  & 
Structures 

Severe  Weather,  Autumn  & 
Structures 

Severe  Weather,  Autumn  & 
Structures 

Severe  Weather,  Autumn  & 
Structures 

Severe  Weather,  Autumn  & 
Structures 

Severe  Weather,  Autumn  & 
Structures 

Severe  Weather,  Autumn  & 
Structures 

Severe  Weather,  Autumn  & 
Structures 

Severe  Weather,  Autumn  & 
Structures 

Severe  Weather,  Autumn  & 
Structures 

 
 
Visibility in semaphore signalled areas, or special working for fog and falling snow implemented by 
Network Rail – in all signalling areas SPL REGS 

Severe  Weather,  Autumn  & 
Structures 

Severe flooding beyond that which could be mitigated on Network Rail infrastructure SEV FLOOD 

Lightning Strike – damage to protected systems. LGHTNG 

Severe  Weather,  Autumn  & 
Structures 

Severe  Weather,  Autumn  & 
Structures 

Blanket  speed  restriction  for  extreme  heat  or  high  wind  in  accordance  with  the  Group  Standards 
BLNK REST 

Severe  Weather,  Autumn  & 
Structures 

No Code Desc 

Severe  Weather,  Autumn  & 
Structures 

Severe heat affecting infrastructure the responsibility of Network Rail (excluding Heat speeds) SEV 
HEAT 

Severe  Weather,  Autumn  & 
Structures 

Severe cold weather affecting infrastructure the responsibility of Network Rail SEV COLD 

Severe  Weather,  Autumn  & 
Structures 

High  winds  affecting  infrastructure  the  responsibility  of  Network  Rail  including  objects  on  the  line 
due to the effect of weather WIND 

Severe  Weather,  Autumn  & 
Structures 

212 

 
 
 
 
Table A9 - Potential scale of delays attributed to force majeure (UK 2015-2016) 

Force majeure definition 

Causes included 

TOC-on-TOC175 

% of delay within 
‘force 
majeure’ 
definition 

1. Any cause of delay outside of the control of the railway undertaking concerned 

All NR-on-TOC176 , that includes causes linked to External factors, Network 

71.0% 

management, ,Non-track access, Severe Weather, Autumn & Structures 
and finally problems on tracks 

2. Any cause of delay outside of the control of the railway undertaking concerned 

(but assuming all TOCs count as one organisation) 

All NR-on-TOC, that includes causes177 linked to External factors, Network 

management, ,Non-track access, Severe Weather, Autumn & Structures 
and finally problems on tracks 

59.8% 

3. Any cause of delay which could not reasonably have been foreseen or could not 

External factors; Severe Weather, Autumn & Structures; Non-Track Assets 

reasonably have been mitigated 

4. Any cause of delay which could not reasonably have been foreseen 

Track 

External 

Severe Weather, Autumn & Structures 

41.4% 

17.0% 

Source:  SDG  (2016),  Impact  Assessment  exercise  concerning  a  possible  revision  of  regulation  (EC)  No.  1371/2007  on  rail  passengers'  rights  and 
obligations 

175   TOC = Train operating companies, TOC-on-TOC means incidents that one train operating company causes to another train operating company 

176   NR is the infrastructure manager Network Rail, NR-on-TOC means incidents caused by the infrastructure manager to a train operating company 

177   Definitions in use are provided in Table A8 in Annexe 5 

213 

 
 
                                                 
Table A10 - List of Enforcement measures 

Persuasion through awareness 

- 

(NEBs)  Reporting  on  sanctions  applied  and  other  enforcement  measures  imposed 
where infringements were detected 

-  Publication  of  enforcement  policy  documents  (objectives,  long-term  roadmap, 

priorities) 

-  Publication  of  guidelines,  checklists  and  toolkits  to  encourage  and  facilitate 

compliance  

-  Publication of blacklists ("naming and shaming" as deterrents for third parties) 

Enforcement Notices and Warning Letters 

Improvement Notices 

- 
-  Suspension Notices 
-  Enforcement Notices 
-  Enforcement Actions 

Reputation-based measures 

-  Publicity Requirements  
-  Publication  of  blacklists  ("naming  and  shaming"  as  reputation-based  measures  for 

operators in the blacklist) 

Alternative sentencing in criminal sentences 

-  Profit Order  
-  Corporate Rehabilitation Order 
-  Publicity Order 

Licence Suspension and revocation 

Other measures 

- 
- 

- 

-Distribution of vouchers for passengers/PRMs that lodged a complaint 
-Organization  of  surveys  among  passengers  to  evaluate  the  quality  of  service 
including for PRMs 
-Responsive approach to inspections: differentiated enforcement strategy based on 
the behaviour and history of dealings with RUs. 

 
 
 
 
 
Table A11: Draft screening of policy measures 

Key: 

Low  / poor 
assessment against 
criterion 

Medium 

High / good 

Depends on 
specific 
requirements  

Proposed policy measure 

Source 

Legal feasibility 

Effectiveness and 
efficiency 

Political 
feasibility 

Proportionality and scope 

Information 

passengers 

RUs to  send sms/e-mail  info 
about 
to 
of 
delays/cancellations 
services  using 
same 
channels  as  chosen  at  the 
time of booking 

the 

IT 

provision 
Information 
under 
required 
already 
Article 8 and Annex II Part 
I. Depending on the type of 
service and means of ticket 
purchase,  RUs  may  not 
have  the  contact  details  of 
passengers.   

Exemptions 

Clarify obligations for mixed 
journeys  with  exempted  and 
non-exempted 
services. 
Exempted  services  should 
always  be  considered  as 
exempted  even  if  they  are 

SNCF, UTP  This  will  be  tackled  in  the 
discussion 
through-
tickets 

on 

Depending  on  the 
formulation, 
it 
might  be  a  costly 
measure for RUs.  

Such  a  measure 
been 
has 
requested 
by 
consumer 
organisation,  but 
to 
a  way 
in 

To  introduce  obligations  to 
consider  the  whole  journey 
covered by a through ticket as 
exempted  could  be  seen  as 
national 
overruling 
exemptions granted to certain 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Proposed policy measure 

Source 

Legal feasibility 

Effectiveness and 
efficiency 

Political 
feasibility 

Proportionality and scope 

part of the journey.  

PRMs 

the 
consider 
whole  journey  as 
exempted.  COM 
guidelines 
already 
recommended  to 
consider 
the 
whole  journey  as 
exempted.  

in 
services 
Regulation.  

line  with 

the 

To  keep  exempted  services 
exempted  does  not  remove 
legal 
for 
insecurity 
passengers.  

Definition  of  station/staffed 
station, 
station  manager, 
other facilities 

BE, HR, SE  Risk  of  conflict  with  other 
rail  legislation,  notably  on 
access rules or PRM TSI. 

NA 

Potential 
resistance 
MS/SM 

from 

Depending  on  the  definition. 
This  can  be  clarified  through 
guidance. 

Clarify  definition  of  PRM. 
Add  requirement  to  show 
proof entitling to the right to 
assistance.  

SNCF 

The  definition  of  PRM  is 
aligned 
all  PR 
across 
Regulations. 

a  measure 
to  a 
lead 

Such 
would 
significant 
reduction  of  PRM 
passenger rights. 

COM 
The 
specified 
its 
in 
2015  guidelines 
that  no  proof  can 
be  required  for 
assistance. 

Provide  greater  detail  on 
access 
non-discriminatory 

HR 

To  be  checked  in  line  with 
PRM  TSI  and  the  proposal 

Some 
resistance 
from  RU  is  to  be 

Depending on the 
definition  

Depending on the definition  

216 

 
 
 
 
Proposed policy measure 

Source 

Legal feasibility 

Effectiveness and 
efficiency 

Political 
feasibility 

Proportionality and scope 

rules for PRM (Article 19) 

for  an  equal 
directive178.  

treatment 

expected.  

HR 

Provide  greater  detail  on 
to  be  considered 
efforts 
'reasonable'  relating  to  PRM 
assistance if there is no staff 
on board or at the station.  

There  is  a  risk  that  by 
providing  more  detail  on 
term  would  narrow 
the 
the  amount  and 
down 
nature  of  efforts 
to  be 
made.  

Depending  on  the 
definition 

Depending on the 
definition 

This  can  be  clarified  through 
guidance. 

Compensation and assistance to passengers in case of missed connections, delays or cancellations 

Add 
for 
compensation 
additional  services  such  as 
tickets for vehicle trains 

AT 

Already  covered  in  CIV 
(Chapter  IV,  Articles  23  – 
  Rules  on  carrier 
24). 
liability  and  compensation 
loading  or 
for  delay 
in 
loss  of 
delivery  or  for 
vehicles  are  also  contained 
in the CIV (Articles 44 and 
45) and can be claimed in a 
court procedure.   

178   Proposal  for  a  Council  Directive  on  implementing  the  principle  of  equal  treatment  between  persons  irrespective  of  religion  or  belief,  disability,  age  or  sexual  orientation  {SEC(2008)  2180}  {SEC(2008)  2181},  

COM/2008/0426 final, 2.7.2008 

217 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Proposed policy measure 

Source 

Legal feasibility 

Effectiveness and 
efficiency 

Political 
feasibility 

Proportionality and scope 

Automatic  compensation  for 
delays  should  be  given  to 
passengers  –  no  need 
to 
complain.  

IT 

Better  define  whether  delay 
means  delay  of  the  train  or 
delay of the passenger 

NHK (HU) 

An  individual  assessment 
must always be possible. 

Article  3  (12)  is  crystal 
clear  that  the  delay  to  be 
used  as  a  basis  to  calculate 
compensation  must  be  the 
delay  of  the  passenger  at 
the 
final  destination  on 
his/her ticket. 

NA 

NA 

Enforcement of the rail passenger rights legislation 

SE 

on 
rules/guidance 
Add 
whether  NEBs  can  enforce 
on  enterprises  which  are  not 
RUs  to  comply  with  the 
Regulation.  

Already  covered  under  the 
Regulation  which  is  clear 
this  aspect.  Further 
on 
be 
clarification 
provided 
through 
guidelines.  

could 

NA 

NA 

218 

Guidance  could  be  provided 
on 
lodging  of 
complaints 

facilitating 

Already  clarified  by 
Commission 
guidelines.  

the 
its  2015 

in 

to 

explicitly 
The  Regulation 
mentions  other  actors  (ticket 
vendors/tour  operators)  who 
have  obligations,  e.g.  with 
regard 
travel  or  PRM 
information (Article 8 and 20: 
ticket  vendors 
tour 
operators)  or  availability  of 
tickets 
ticket 
(Article  9: 
vendors).  For  compensation 
the 
(operating)  RUs  are 
responsible. Under Article 27 
passengers  can  complain  to 

and 

 
 
 
 
Proposed policy measure 

Source 

Legal feasibility 

Effectiveness and 
efficiency 

Political 
feasibility 

Proportionality and scope 

Measures not covered by any of the identified problem drivers 

Translation  issues  with  the 
Regulation 
in  certain  EU 
languages 

BE, HR 

NA 

NA 

NA 

any RU involved.  

translation 
Out  of  scope, 
issues cannot be tackled by a 
revision,  but  MS  would  have 
to  address  their  concerns  to 
the Council 

FI,IT 

Proposal  to  take  a  multi-
modal  approach  to  align  PR 
in  all  modes,  also  view  of 
integrated 
multi-modal 
tickets 

Full  new  IA  would  be 
required 
a 
for 
measure. 

such 

Depending  on  the 
of 
scope 
this 
measure, 
it  might 
produce  high  costs 
for operators.  

EP is  pushing for 
multi-modal  PR, 
but  operators  are 
more sceptical.  

COM  will  assess  options  to 
address  passenger  rights  in  a 
multi-modal  context. 
  To 
include  this  in  the  revision 
would go beyond the scope of 
a mere revision of RPR. 

Proposed policy measure 

Source 

Legal feasibility 

Effectiveness and 
efficiency 

Political 
feasibility 

Proportionality and scope 

Force Majeure 

Remove  force  majeure  from  FI 

A  proposal  for  a  revised  Such 

a  measure  Foreseeable 

Measure  might  be  in  conflict 

219 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Proposed policy measure 

Source 

Legal feasibility 

Effectiveness and 
efficiency 

Political 
feasibility 

Proportionality and scope 

other 
Regulations (notably air) 

Passenger  Rights 

Competition 
and 
Consumer 
Authority 
(KKV),  
EPF, 
Trainline, 
DE 
consumer 
association 
(VZBV),  DE 
rail 
passenger 
organisation 
(PRO 
BAHN) 

to 
under 

Regulation on air passenger 
rights 
is  currently  under 
negotiation.  No changes to 
remove FM were made and 
be 
have 
would 
co-
introduced 
is  no 
decision.  There 
intention 
revise 
rights 
Passenger 
Regulations  for  waterborne 
and  bus  &  coach  transport 
in the short term. 

to 

Create  an  insurance  against 
force majeure 

PRO BAHN  There is no need to regulate 
such a measure at EU level 

strong  opposition 
from  MS 
and 
carriers.  

with  the  general  principle  of 
legal 
and 
fairness 
proportionality. 

Potential 
resistance 
RUs. 

No  need  to  regulate  this  at 
EU level 

from 

increase 
would 
passenger 
rights 
and  legal  certainty. 
However,  it  would 
a  heavy 
impose 
financial  burden  on 
carriers.  

This measure would 
cover  the  costs  of 
railway 
undertakings  in  the 
event 
force 
of 
majeure.    However, 
it  would  impose  a 
financial  burden  on 
RUs  and  would  not 
solve  the  issue  of 
unfairness 
legal 

220 

 
 
Proposed policy measure 

Source 

Legal feasibility 

Effectiveness and 
efficiency 

Political 
feasibility 

Proportionality and scope 

assistance 

Make 
to 
passengers  in  case  of  force 
majeure non-binding 

Source: DG MOVE 

an 

(Rail 

RDG 
Delivery 
Group: 
industry 
body 
representing 
railway 
undertakings 
and 
infrastructure 
managers 
in 
Great 
Britain) 

This  would  significantly 
undermine the protection of 
passengers  and  not  be  in 
line  with  the  objectives  of 
the  rail  passenger  rights 
to  provide  a 
Regulation 
high 
level  of  passenger 
protection. 

between  modes  of 
transport. 

Pragmatic  reaction 
the 
from  RUs  in 
event 
force 
of 
majeure, rather than 
concern  about  law 
However, 
suits. 
passenger’s 
protection  would 
significantly 
decrease.  

Strong opposition 
to  be  expected 
from MS, EP and 
passenger 
rights 
organisations.  

221 

 
 
 
Table A12: Exemptions

222 

ExemptionsTime-limitExemptionsTime-limitExemptionsTime-limitAustriaXUrban: All provisions of the Regulation except for those  provided in Art 2(3); Suburban and regional: Art 16, 17, 18(4), 28, 15 in conjuction with Annex I Title IV Chapter II: € 80 cost limit for hotel and € 50 for taxi (not applicable to disabled persons).unlimitedXBelgiumXXXBulgariaArticles 4, 5, 6(1), 8, 10, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20 (2) - 255 yearsArticles 4, 5, 6(1), 8, 10, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20 (2) - 255 yearsArticles 4, 5, 6(1), 8, 10, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20 (2) - 255 yearsCzech RepublicArt 8, 10, 17 18(2)(a) and (b), 18(3), Annex I Art 7(2)(b), 17(2)(b), 24(3)(b), 32,  and Annex II 5 yearsXXCroatiaArt 13,15,16,17,18,25 and 285 yearsArt 13,15,16,17,18,25 and 285 years Art 13,15,16,17,18,25 and 285 yearsDenmarkXXXEstoniaArt 10, 13(2), 15, 16, 17, 18(2), (4) and (5) and 225 yearsArt 10, 13(2), 15, 18(2), (4) and (5) and 22  5 yearsArt 10, 13(2), 15, 16, 17 and 225 yearsFinlandXArt 10, 17 and 18(2)(a) and (b) are not applicable in regional services of Helsinki Metropolitan Region (Helsinki-Kirkkonummi, Helsinki-Karjaa, Helsinki-Vantaankoski-Helsinki-Vantaa Airport-Tikkurila-Helsinki, Helsinki-Riihimäki, Helsinki-Lahti and Lahti-Riihimäki)  unlimitedOnly those related to services to/from Russia. 5 yearsFranceAll provisions of the Regulation except for those provided in Art 2(3)5 yearsAll provisions of the Regulation except for those provided in Art 2(3)unlimitedXGermanyXArt 8 (2), Art 15 - 18 (modifications), 18 (2) a), 27 (3), 28, 29 (1) sentence 1, and for services run mainly on account of their historical significance or for the purposes of tourismunlimitedXGreeceArt 10, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 285 yearsArt 10, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 285 yearsArt 10, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 28 related to services to Serbia, other countries via FYROM and Turkey5 yearsHungaryArt 8(2), 10(1), (2) and (4), 17, 18(2)(a) and (b), 18(5), 21(1) and 235 yearsAll provisions of the Regulation with the exemption of what established in Art 2(3)5 yearsArt 10(1), (2) and (4), 18(2)(a) and (b), 18(5), 21(1) and 23 5 yearsIrelandArt 13, 15, 21 and 235 yearsArt 13, 15, 21 and 235 yearsItalyXXXLatviaAll provisions of the Regulation except for those provided in Art 2(3)5 yearsAll provisions of the Regulation except for those provided in Art 2(3)5 yearsNot applicable to services between stations located in Latvia and third countries5 yearsLithuania Art. 8 (2) and (3) (Annex II), 13, 21, 22, 23 and 245 yearsXAll provisions of the Regulation5 yearsLuxembourgXAll provisions of the Regulation except for those provided in Art 2(3)unlimitedXNetherlandsXXXPolandArt. 8(3), 10, 21 (1)5 yearsAll provisions of the Regulation except for those provided in Art 4, 5, 8(1), 9, 11, 12, 16, 19, 20(1), 21(2), 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29. unlimitedArt. 8(3), 10, 21 (1)5 yearsPortugalAll provisions of the Regulation except for those provided in Art 2(3) as well as Art 8, 10,13-17, 18(2), 20(2),  27, 28, as well as art.6-14 &32 of Annex I, Annex II, Annex III •  PT confirm that intends to 5 yearsAll provisions of the Regulation except for those provided in Art 2(3) as well as Art 8, 10,13-17, 18(2), 20(2),  27, 28, as well as Art.6-14 &32 of Annex I, Annex II, Annex III5 yearsRomaniaAll provisions of the Regulation except for those provided in Art 2(3)5 yearsAll provisions of the Regulation except for those provided in Art 2(3)5 yearsAll provisions of the Regulation except forthose provided in Art 2(3)All provisions of the Regulation 5 yearsSloveniaXXXSlovakiaArt. 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 25 and 285 yearsAll provisions of the Regulation except for those provided in Art 2(3)unlimitedXSpainXArt. 10, 21 - 24        unlimitedXSwedenXArt. 7, 8 (1), 10 (1), (2) and (4), 15, 16, 17 and 18unlimitedXUKAll provisions of the Regulation except for those provided in Art 2(3)5 yearsAll provisions of the Regulation except for those provided in Art 2(3)unlimitedXnot applicableCountryDomestic Rail ServicesUrban, suburban and regional servicesInternational rail services beyond external EU bordersYesNoNoRegulation 1371/2007 on rail passenger rightsSummary Table - Information on national exemptions (situation in March 2017)NoYesYes 
 
Document A 1: Overview on competition between rail and other modes of transport  

The  Commission  assessed  the  level  of  competition  between  air  transport  and  rail 
transport in several merger control decisions on the basis of the point of origin - point of 
destination  (or  city-pair)  approach.  A  distinction  was  drawn  between  time-sensitive 
passengers  (predominantly  business  travellers)  and  non-time  sensitive  passengers 
(predominantly leisure travellers).  

For  instance,  rail  transport  was  considered  a  substitute to  air  transport on  the  Brussels-
London  route  and  partially  on 
the  Brussels-Frankfurt  route  (case  M5335  – 
Lufthansa/SN),  on  the  Athens-Thessaloniki  route  (case  M5830  –  Olympic/Aegean),  on 
the  Vienna-Linz  route  and  partially  on  the  Vienna-Munich  route  (case  M5440  – 
Lufthansa/Austrian) and on the London – Manchester route and partially on the London-
Edinburg route (case M6447-IAG/BMI).  

On  the  opposite,  substitutability  between  air  transport  and  rail  transport  has  not  been 
recognized  on  the  Brussels-Munich  and  Brussels-Hamburg  routes  (case  M5335-
Lufthansa/SN).  

A  certain  degree  of  competition  between  rail  and  air  transport  could  also  be  identified 
cases  M5655  – 
(without 
SNCF/LCR/Eurostar,  M6150  –  Veolia  Transport/Trenitalia/SV  and  M  7011  – 
SNCF/SNCB/Thalys SV.  

substitutability) 

the  merger 

concluding 

in 

to 

The  Commission  did  not  have  the  opportunity  to  assess  competition  between  rail 
transport  and  coach  transport  in  detail  in  merger  control  decisions.  However,  in  case 
M1768-Schoyen/Goldman Sachs/Swebus, it has not excluded competition between coach 
and rail transport especially at regional level. 

223