Brussels, 21/05/2013 (Agence Europe) - As proposed by the European Commission, the fourth rail package should perhaps incorporate many exemptions, such as governance. The Channel Tunnel concession, which is operated and managed by the private company Eurotunnel, contains many exceptions, as does the very limited Luxembourg railway market.
The Franco-British company Eurotunnel, which holds the concession for the tunnel, is determined that its special features should be taken into account in the casting of the fourth railway package. The same is true regarding the sustainability of its operations. It is the chapter relating to railway governance that causes the real problem by making it an obligation to separate infrastructure management from service operation, as demanded of holdings still permitted by the strict “Chinese walls” which ensure the necessary, legal, financial and operational separation (see EUROPE 10775). Eurotunnel presents unusual characteristics from the point of view of the Commission's preliminary work by ensuring not only the management of the tunnel infrastructure but also the operation of rail cargo via its subsidiary, Europorte. And yet, the company - being formed with 100% private funding - does not present the competition distortion issues that the Commission seeks to eliminate.
Jean-Alexis Souvras, Eurotunnel Public Affairs Director, explained this to the press on 14 May, saying (our translation throughout): “There is no risk of cross subsidisation as there is no public funding that could promote any one operator”. Hence, the company depends “only on income from its operation” and “is permanently seeking new clients”. This results in the fact that “it is not in Eurotunnel's interest to protect any one party. It is an approach that is different from other groups in Europe”, he said.
Souvras went on to say that “there is a need for financial flow within the group in order to cover debt servicing”. The company, which is structured in groups and subsidiaries, manages to finance that debt (sustainable since 2008 after financial restructuring), partly through income brought in by the infrastructure manager. This is a situation that is especially criticised in the European Commission's proposal for a directive, hence the development of these “Chinese walls” in the fourth railway package.
The group Eurotunnel is therefore justified in its concern for the bringing into question of the railways holdings in this draft legislative package. While Eurotunnel can, indeed, demonstrate legal separation, the group cannot allow itself a financial separation that does not, however, have an impact on competition as no public funding is concerned. A legal expert from the group therefore points out that the texts of the fourth railway package must reflect the specific features of Eurotunnel so that “a single interest is not drowned in general interests”. A request for exemption on the part of the company is said to be at the draft stage.
That request is, however, perhaps not the only one. The specific features of the market in the Baltic States and Luxembourg and the rail and port infrastructure could also be claimed. “There are cases where there is no reason to impose such strict rules”, the expert said by way of conclusion. (MD/transl.jl)