In EU Council working documents dated 15 July consulted by Agence Europe, the EU27 raise a series of questions about the three regulations in the ‘one journey, one ticket’ package (see EUROPE 13868/2). The main issues raised include: the definition of dominant players, the scope of the proposals, operator liability, and accommodation obligations.
Rail ticketing. As for rail ticketing reform, several Member States question the criteria used to determine dominant players in the various national markets. Italy, Sweden, and Belgium are asking the Commission about the criteria used for players with “significant market presence”, defined as providing at least 50% of a Member State’s passenger rail transport services measured in passenger-kilometres.
Like Spain (see EUROPE 13926/3), several countries question the scope of the text as regards certain regional lines or suburban services. They are requesting clarification as to which sub-national transport networks could or could not be covered by this legislation.
The hosting obligation is also a sore point in the regulation, with some incumbent operators quite reluctant to accept the obligation to display journeys offered by their competitors. France is asking whether Article 5’s definition of “vertical integration” would cover the case where the entity distributing tickets is a travel agency wholly owned by a subsidiary of the railway undertaking, as in the case of SNCF Connect. Several countries also seek clarification on obligations for visibility, linking, sale, and distribution of rail services.
Sweden fears the text could have the opposite effect than intended, strengthening the position of players already dominant in the online ticketing market. Stockholm is asking whether other solutions were considered, specifically measures encouraging ticketing services to be separated from dominant railway companies. Similarly, Finland is asking whether the effects of the hosting obligation on independent ticketing platforms and ticket sales competition have been assessed.
Rail passenger rights. The regulation on rail passenger rights introduces the concept of ‘single’ and ‘through’ tickets, provoking many questions among Member States. Belgium is particularly concerned about legal insecurity, while the Netherlands, Austria, and France request clarification on their definition and functioning.
Several countries are asking for specifics about the rules that apply to tickets combining several modes of transport or railway undertakings, particularly for journeys that include long-distance sections and local services. Finland notes that the text does not explicitly specify whether urban and suburban services would be covered by ‘single’ tickets.
The question of liability for railway undertakings was also brought up, an issue that had already been identified back when the text was presented (see EUROPE 13868/2). Italy explains that provided the minimum connection time is respected, the proposal would allow third-party distributors to create single tickets when no commercial agreement exists between the railway undertakings concerned. Rome questions the imposing of obligations on assistance, rerouting, and compensation to railway undertakings in relation to travel combinations created by third parties without the direct involvement of railway undertakings.
Lastly, Member States insist on the need to harmonise the definitions of the three texts in order to guarantee consistency, especially on the different types of tickets and rail transport operator designation.
See the documents: https://aeur.eu/f/n82 ; https://aeur.eu/f/n83 ; https://aeur.eu/f/n84 (Original version in French by Juliette Verdes)