Brussels, 28/04/2016 (Agence Europe) - After France, Germany and the United Kingdom received the clarifications they wanted on conflicts of interest and high-speed railways within the framework of the political pillar of the 4th rail package, on Thursday morning 28 April, the Committee of Permanent Representatives (Coreper) adopted the inter-institutional agreement reached a week before.
The three member states made a joint request on Tuesday for clarification of the governance chapter which relates to the directive establishing a single European rail area (see EUROPE 11541). What was being sought was principally legal-technical clarification on how to transpose the directive; it was not a blocking manoeuvre, contrary to what a source close to the issue had initially suggested.
Thus, with regard to the point on conflicts of interest, they wanted a clear statement of the role of the member state as the organiser of the domestic legal order in conflicts of interest that could arise from movements of staff between the rail operators and rail managers, another source revealed (Article 7). Initially, the text made reference to the regulator but not to member states.
The second request for clarification was similar in that it focused on the role of the member state. Here, the three delegations wanted to be sure of the procedure in the “economic equilibrium” tests to be carried out when a new entrant joins the rail network. These tests form the basis for the right of the national authority to amend or restrict entry conditions (Article 11). The question related notably to what happens to the regulator's opinion in the case of a high-speed line. Here, the Commission confirmed that the procedure was the same as for traditional lines, that is, the regulator presents its recommendations and the relevant national authority takes its decisions accordingly. This response confirms France's position, a third source said.
Within the Parliament, this delay was interpreted in a number of ways. Some sources saw in it one final manoeuvre by certain member states to send a message to their national operators. Tony Berkeley, a board member of the European Rail Freight Association, wondered on Wednesday 27 April what had made the UK follow Germany and France. He believes that these latest clarifications will allow France and other member states which have vertically integrated rail systems to maintain the status quo and, thus, their national operators' monopoly. According to the Bulletin Quotidien de la Société générale de presse (France) of 15 April, these recent procrastinations stem from a conflict between the French rail and road regulatory authority, Arafer, and the French government over the appointment of Chairman of the Board at Keolis, Jean-Pierre Farandou, as head of the SNCF network.
More generally, the political pillar, which is well on the way to being formally adopted in the autumn, seems to be more contentious in the European Parliament. Karima Delli (Greens/EFA, France), while welcoming the adoption of the technical pillar adopted the same day (see other article), believes that it is a case of not being able to see the wood for the trees and expressed her concern at the content of the political chapter. “While this could have provided an opportunity to improve the offer of services in a sector in crisis, the member states, in Council, have done everything in their power protect their national rail system and their monopolistic companies”, she regretted. When asked about this by EUROPE, Michael Cramer (Greens/EFA, Germany) expressed the view that no matter the content of the political pillar, it will not have any significant impact on the technical pillar. (Original version in French by Pascal Hansens)