Luxembourg, 09/06/2006 (Agence Europe) - The EU Transport Council managed to reach a political agreement on the revised proposal for a regulation on public passenger transport by road and rail, on 9 June in Luxembourg. After talks lasting several hours, the European Union Transport Ministers finally agreed to open this sector up to competition a little more, after the dossier has been on the Council table for six years now. The Czech Republic, Greece, Luxembourg and Malta abstained, while Germany took time before rallying to the compromise. The European Parliament has now to take a stance on the dossier in second reading.
Presented in September 2005, the proposed regulation aims to update the 1969 regulation (amended in 1991), to make public passenger transport by road and rail more competitive, while safeguarding services of general interest (SGI). In order to achieve this, it allows the relevant authorities either to provide public service transport themselves (as a state-owned corporation) or to directly attribute public service contracts to an internal operator (hence concluding contracts directly without calls for tenders), or using external operators but, this time, organising calls for tenders. The proposal provides, however, for exceptions when it comes to regional and long distance rail services, which may also be the subject of direct awards (without calls for tenders).
In its political agreement, the Council decided on Monday to extend this exception to all “heavy” rail services including suburban rail transport and integrated networks (including, for example, the RER, but excluding the metro and tram). The relevant authorities may also directly award public service contracts whose annual average value is estimated at less than one million euros or which are aimed at annual provisions of less than 30,000 kilometres in public service passenger transport. In its political agreement also, the Council decided - upon insistence from Germany - to increase this threshold for small and medium-sized companies (SMEs) and to increase it to €1.7 million (500,000 kilometres) to allow them to benefit more from direct contract awarding.
In order to offset this extension of direct awards, the Council foresees two transparency measures in order to strengthen the obligation that is incumbent on the relevant authorities to motivate their decisions. These authorities are therefore obliged to publish information during a contract awarded directly for rail transport services and to state, at the request of the parties interested, their decision motivated during direct awarding of a public service contract.
The duration of public service contracts is kept at ten years for bus transport and at fifteen years for rail transport. The Council, however, provides for a duration of ten years for public service contracts in the rail sector when these contracts are directly awarded. According to the political agreement, the Member States may also decide to apply the provisions of the regulation in force to their inland waterway transport.
According to the political agreement, the proposal is expected to take effect three years after it has been published in the Official Journal. However, after the regulation takes effect, a transitional twelve year period is foreseen to allow operators to adjust to the provisions of the new regulation on awarding public service contracts. The reciprocity clause contained in the initial proposal, which authorises a Member State to refuse access to its market for an operator of another Member State whose market remains closed to competition, will also be maintained.
During the public debate between ministers prior to the agreement, the Commissioner for Transport, Jacques Barrot, had stressed the need to take a decision on this proposal which has been on the Council table for six years. The current regulation is “more than 35 years old” and now entails “legal insecurity” on Community territory, the Commissioner explained, saying that the new proposal was “a good example of subsidiarity”. After lunch, the Commissioner had even described the last compromise proposed by the Austrian Presidency on the basis of interventions from the various national delegations during the debate as ”the best balance possible”.
Four Member States finally abstained: the Czech Republic, Malta, Luxembourg and Greece. The Czech Republic believes measures on transparency pose a problem for internal legal reasons. Luxembourg, Greece and Malta wanted to increase the ceiling applicable to SMEs for direct awarding of public service contracts. Malta believes the 500,000 kilometre ceiling for SME contracts was quite simply “unacceptable”.
Four member states ultimately abstained: the Czech Republic, Malta, Luxembourg and Greece. For the Czech Republic it is the measures on transparency which posed problems for internal legal reasons. Luxembourg, Greece and Malta wanted to raise the ceiling applicable to SMEs for the direct granting of public service contracts. For Malta, the threshold of 500000 kilometres for SME contracts was quite simply “unacceptable”.