COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 251 (2) of the EC Treaty concerning the common position of the Council on the adoption of a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision N° 1692/96/EC on Community guidelines for the development of the Trans-European Transport Network

2001/0229 (COD)

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 251 (2) of the EC Treaty concerning the common position of the Council on the adoption of a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision N° 1692/96/EC on Community guidelines for the development of the Trans-European Transport Network

1- BACKGROUND

Proposal 2001

Date of transmission of the proposal to the EP and the Council (document COM(2001) 544 final - 2001/0229 (COD)): // 9 October 2001

Date of the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee: // 21 March 2002

Date of the opinion of the European Parliament, first reading: // 30 May 2002

Date of transmission of the amended proposal: (document COM(2002) 542 final - 2001/0229 (COD)): // 26 September 2002

Date of adoption of the common position: // 16 April 2004

Proposal 2003

Date of transmission of the proposal to the EP and the Council (document COM(2003) 564 final - 2001/0229 (COD)): // 16 October 2003

Date of the opinion of the European Parliament, first reading: // 11 March 2004

Date of adoption of the common position: // 14 April 2004

2- OBJECTIVE OF THE COMMISSION PROPOSAL

The objective of the 2001 proposal is to revise the guidelines on the development of the trans-European network (Decision 1692/96/EC) in accordance with the White Paper on the European transport policy and several Council conclusions. The overall aim is to alleviate bottlenecks by putting more emphasis on investments in railways, inland waterways, short sea shipping, intermodal operations and effective interconnection. Due to the delays in completing the network, the amendments introduce accordingly more concentration on a smaller number of thematic priorities (article 5) and specific projects (Annexe III updating the list adopted by the European Council of Essen in 1994), including Galileo and a new rail crossing in the Pyrenees.

The 2001 proposal was approved by the European Parliament in its first reading with some modifications whereas it did not make progress in the Council. To unblock the situation in the Council, the Commission decided to bring forward the more comprehensive amendment of the Guidelines foreseen for 2004 and set up a High Level Group (HLG) chaired by former Commissioner Mr. Van Miert and comprising representatives from the current and future Member States and the European Investment Bank. Based on the recommendations of the HLG, the Commission presented a new complementary proposal [1] on 1 October 2003. The main elements of this complementary proposal are:

[1] COM(2003) 564 final.

A limited number of new priority projects. The proposal puts forward a list of 29 priority axes - to be declared of European Interest - integrating the networks of the future Member States to make enlargement a success and provide the Union with a new opportunity to reduce congestion and encourage intermodality.

Concentration of aid from the Community. The fact amongst others that the priority projects will be declared to be of European interest will have the consequence to focus on them the aid for the trans-European networks, from the Cohesion Fund and the Structural Funds.

A new mechanism for supporting motorways of the sea is proposed to encourage joint initiatives by the Member States to launch new regular transnational cargo shipping lines. This mechanism will enable Member States, with Community assistance, to support packages involving infrastructure, logistic systems and start-up aid. It will give motorways of the sea, which improve links with island and peripheral countries isolated by natural barriers the same importance as motorways and railways in the trans-European network.

Closer international cooperation. To encourage better synchronisation of investments, the Commission proposes designating a European coordinator for projects or groups of projects located on the same European axis. The coordinator, acting in the name and on behalf of the Commission, will also give advice on the financial package for the projects. To solve the difficulties caused by Member States' separate national evaluation procedures, the Commission has proposed to Member States coordinated evaluation and public consultation procedures prior to the authorisation of projects. For certain cross-border sections, such as bridges or tunnels, the Member States could, for example, conduct a joint transnational enquiry.

The proposal goes hand in hand with a parallel proposal to amend the rules on financial aid for the TEN-T in order to allow a higher rate of co-funding for the cross-border sections of the priority projects.

3- COMMENTS ON THE COMMON POSITION

The Common Position takes up several modifications aiming at addressing most of the amendments adopted by the European Parliament in its first and second first readings of the proposals.

Regarding the 2001 proposal, amendments no 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 14, 16, 19, 21 (partly), 22, 24, 25, 26 (partly), 27, 28, 30 and 46 (in principle), 48 and 51 are included fully or with some modifications in the Common Position.

As to the complementary proposal of 2003, amendments no 1, 3, 6, 9, 16, 20 and 25 are included fully or with minor clarifying modifications while only parts of amendments no 33/rev and 42, 34 and 43, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 19, 22 and 26 are accepted in the Common Position. Amendments no 2, 4, 5, 37 and 44, 38, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 39/rev and 45, 21, 23 and 24 are not accepted.

The Common Position differs from the European Parliament's voted amendments in the following main areas:

Definition of the network (Art. 1) - several amendments of the Parliament propose to amend the general description of the network in more detail by adding policy objectives to be met, intersections between corridors and logistical platforms. These amendments are not accepted, as they go beyond the aims of the article. However, some of the Parliament's proposals are included under Art. 5, which defines priorities for the network by adding references to intermodality, access to peripheral regions, long-distance shipping and to sustainable mobility.

Environmental assessment (Art. 8) - amendments of the Parliament to the 2001 proposal request the Commission to carry out a strategic environmental assessment in anticipation of the adoption of legislation in the field (Directive 2001/42/EC), to carry out such assessments in 10 Accession countries or to strategically assess corridors. These amendments are not included in the Common Position, because they seem redundant given that the Directive will be transposed in July 2004 and the 10 countries becoming Member States in May 2004. The Commission also prepared an extended impact assessment, including environmental impacts of the 2003 proposal (SEC(2003) 1060). However, several amendments on environmental assessment have been included and the role of environmental assessment has been considerably strengthened in the following areas: First, the results of environmental assessment pursuant the Directive 2001/42/EC shall be taken into account when Member States prepare plans and programmes and when the Guidelines will be revised. Second, these results shall also be taken into account by the Commission when reporting on the implementation of projects and in particular when making legislative proposals to revise the Guidelines. Third, the Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds has been included.

Motorways of the Sea (Art. 12a) - Several parts of amendment 7 are included: regions of States are mentioned in addition to States as part of the concept, waterways or canals linking two motorways of the sea areas are part of the definition as well as projects with wider benefits such as icebreaking. Reference to Marco Polo criteria is included in recital 16. Other elements of amendment 7 were not included. It is felt that references to Treaty articles 87 and 88 and the limitation of the start-up aid to 'duly motivated capital costs', modifying the Commission's initial proposal, ensure fair competition between ports and operators.

Reporting (Art. 18 para 3) - The Common Position takes on board the first part of amendment 28 in that the implementation report will be produced every two years. However, the second part of the amendment specifying requirements for the content of the report is not accepted, as it is considered unnecessary to establish such detailed requirements. On the other hand, the financial information is already included in other reports the Commission presents regularly.

Declaration of European Interest (Art. 19a) - The Commission cannot accept to consult the European Parliament prior to proposing measures in case of serious delays in the completion of the priority projects, as this would not be in accordance with the Commission's right of initiative. However, the Parliament will be informed about such measures. Review of the projects every 15 years in view of possible delisting, while not accepted in the revised proposal of 2002, has now been taken on board in the Common Position.

Annex III on priority projects - Several amendments to priority projects in Annex III of the Parliament are accepted: clarification of alignment at Divaca and Ronchi south in project 6; explicit mention of Algeciras-Bobadilla freight line as part of project 16; explicit mention of the North/Baltic Sea canal; inclusion of Prague-Linz as a branch of project 22. The inland waterway project Seine-Scheldt is also accepted as a new project no 30, as it supported both by the Common Position and the Parliament. Other amendments are not accepted, as these are either not supported by the Member States concerned (cf. Art. 156 of the Treaty) or are mainly outside the territory of EU27 (amendments 19 (part), 21, 23, 24, 25 (part)).

4- CONCLUSION

The Commission considers that the common position adopted unanimously by the Council on 14 April 2004 is faithful to the aims and spirit of the Commission's proposal. The Commission can therefore approve the common position.

The common position includes, either in letter or spirit, many of the amendments adopted by the European Parliament in the first two readings. There is consequently a high level of agreement between the Council, Parliament and the Commission on the key aspects of the proposal.

Accordingly, the Commission commends the common position to the European Parliament.