COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of 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, 27.9.2017  SWD(2017) 317 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT  Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on rail passengers' rights and obligations   (recast) {COM(2017) 548 final} {SWD(2017) 318 final}  
 
 
Executive summary sheet 
Impact  assessment:  revision  of  Regulation  (EC)  No 1371/2007  on  rail  passengers’  rights  and 
obligations 
A. Need for action 
What is the problem and why is it a problem at EU level?  
The  main  problems  with  the  Regulation  are  linked  to  excessive  national  exemptions,  the  rights  of  passengers 
with  disabilities  or  reduced  mobility  (PRMs),  inadequate  information,  through-ticketing,  complaint-handling, 
enforcement,  discrimination  based  on  nationality  and  compensation  following  force majeure  events.  These 
problems negatively affect the single market and prevent consistent enforcement. They may be exacerbated in a 
liberalised EU rail market.  

What should be achieved?  

1. 
2. 

to promote equal and strengthened rights for rail users in the EU; and 
to enhance the rail sector's competitiveness without negatively impacting the rights of passengers. 

What is the added value of action at EU level (subsidiarity)?  
The  current  Regulation  leaves  room  for  interpretation,  preventing  consistent  levels  of  passenger  protection 
across  the  EU.  The  Member  States  cannot  address  these  problems  by  acting  alone.  It  therefore  seems 
appropriate for the EU to act. 
B. Solutions 
What are the options for achieving the objectives? Is there a preferred option? If not, why?  

Exemptions 

- Remove exemptions for long-distance domestic services by 2020 
- Limit exemptions for services with non-EU countries 
- Remove exemptions for cross-border urban, suburban and regional services 

PRM rights 

New rules to improve PRMs’ access to rail services and information 

Information 

Through-ticketing 

Complaint-handling and 
enforcement 

Discrimination 

Force majeure  

New rules to improve information for passengers 

Clearer rules on through-tickets  

Clearer rules for NEB complaint-handling and cooperation 

New non-discrimination clause 

Clause  to  exempt  rail  companies  from  having  to  pay  compensation  for  delays 
caused by severe weather conditions or natural disasters and which could not 
be foreseen or prevented 

What are the various stakeholders’ views? Who supports which option?  
Most Member States and rail companies are reluctant to remove exemptions. Citizens are in favour of reducing 
exemptions and support measures to strengthen passengers’ rights. Most stakeholders are in favour of clearer 
rules, e.g. on assistance, complaint-handling and enforcement. Most rail companies and Member States are in 
favour of, and citizens are against, a force majeure clause. 
C. Impacts of the preferred option 
What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise of main ones)?  
The  combination  of  preferred  options  provides  a  balanced  approach  to  the  potentially  conflicting  policy 
objectives. Reducing exemptions will increase passenger protection and legal certainty. Improvements for PRMs 
will  encourage  them  to  travel  by  rail  and  promote  their  social  inclusion.  Clear  rules  on  through-ticketing  will 
improve  passengers’  rights  on  connecting  services.  A  force majeure  clause  will  ensure  legal  fairness  and 
proportionality. 

What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise of main ones)?  
Rail companies’ costs are expected to increase by 4.98 % from the baseline scenario over a 15-year period.  
What are the impacts on SMEs and competitiveness?  
Only limited indirect effects on SMEs are expected. 
Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations?  
Minor impacts are expected in view of enhanced NEB enforcement and complaint-handling.  
Will there be other significant impacts?  

2 

 
 
 
No major additional impacts are expected.  
Proportionality?  
The  current  divergent  application  of  the  rules  hinders  the  single  market  and  prevents  harmonised  levels  of 
passenger rights across the EU. Guidelines have not yielded sufficient results.  
D. Follow-up 
When will the policy be reviewed?  
The Commission will evaluate the application of the new Regulation five years after its entry into force. 

3