Activites

• 1996/09/17 Final act published in Official Journal
• #1944
• 1996/07/23 Council Meeting
• 1996/07/23 End of procedure in Parliament
• 1996/07/23 Act adopted by Council after consultation of Parliament
• 1996/06/04 Modified legislative proposal published
  • COM(1996)0235
• 1996/04/16 Decision by Parliament, 2nd reading
  • T4-0168/1996 summary

    In adopting the report by Mr Petrus CORNELISSEN (PPE, NL), Parliament called for measures ensuring passenger safety and the right of Member States to adopt special rules or seek derogations for transport operations of local significance or for the transport of dangerous goods on narrow-gauge, dock or mountain railways. It called for the various competent authorities to be given advance warning of any transport operation involving highly dangerous goods. �

• 1996/04/15 Debate in Parliament
  • Debate in Parliament summary

    The rapporteur, Mr Cornelissen (EPP, NL), emphasised that strict measures were needed to control the transport of dangerous goods by rail, particularly in urban areas. While expressing agreement with the common position of the Council, he went on to stress that some room for manoeuvre also had to be left open to Member States as far as local transport was concerned. Similarly, in the event of an accident he wanted to see the authorities kept fully informed of the nature of the goods being transported. Finally, he called on the Commissioner to clarify the definition ‘tunnels with characteristics similar to the Channel Tunnel’. Recalling that the proposal in question was aimed at removing barriers to freedom of movement between Member States, Commissioner Kinnock recognised that harmonisation could not be achieved overnight. It was for this reason that the Commission had provided for maximum flexibility in the proposal and the Council, in turn, had added to this. The Commissioner was not at all in favour of the abundance of bureaucracy associated with Amendment No 1 since this was of no benefit whatsoever from a safety point of view, in that highly dangerous goods such as radioactive substances were already subject to notification. He also considered that Amendment No 2 was completely superfluous, given that its content was already part of the common position. The Commissioner then recognised that the political compromise on the Channel Tunnel that had been reached within the Council comprised the application of stricter standards that were justified from a safety point of view by reason of the specific characteristics of the Channel Tunnel and the Oresund Tunnel. Mr Kinnock concluded by pointing out that in his view the common position seemed to be a balanced compromise.

• 1996/03/18 Vote in committee, 2nd reading
  • A4-0074/1996
• 1996/01/18 Committee referral announced in Parliament, 2nd reading
• #1893
• 1995/12/08 Council Meeting
  • 11303/2/1995 summary

    The common position of the Council incorporates one of the five amendments adopted by the EP at its first reading and accepted by the Commission in its amended proposal. This amendment allows Member States the right to undertake rail transport operations with states of the former Soviet Union which are not contracting parties to the Convention concerning international carriage by rail (COTIF). The other amendments were not accepted. The common position, whilst retaining the principal objectives of harmonisation and safety, nevertheless contains a number of changes to the amended Commission proposal, particularly as regards derogations, restrictions and exemptions most of which are limited in scope. The main changes concern the following points: - the possibility to apply specific safety rules on international or national transport of dangerous goods in areas not covered by the Annex (e.g. routing of trains, special rules for transport of dangerous goods in passenger trains); - the possibility for continuation of rail transport operations between Member States and states of the former Soviet Union under equivalent conditions of safety to those in the Annex; - the possibility for certain Member States to retain, in certain cases, their national legislation with regard to: .transport of dangerous goods via the Channel Tunnel and, in future, other similar tunnels of unique construction; .operating requirements for equipment in Member States where the temperature is regularly less than -20C; .the transport of dioxins and furanes; .the possibility to transport, over short and pre-designated routes, certain dangerous goods prohibited by the Annex but forming part of a defined industrial process, under strictly controlled conditions; .transport operations strictly confined to airports and industrial sites. �

• #1870
• 1995/09/28 Council Meeting
• 1995/09/14 Modified legislative proposal published
  • COM(1995)0424 summary

    The Commission's amended proposal incorporates the amendment allowing Member States to continue transport operations to and from the states of the former Soviet Union under conditions which do not correspond in all points to the provisions of the Annex but which nonetheless safeguard an equivalent level of safety. However, the Commission did not incorporate the four other amendments in the text of the directive.�

• 1995/07/13 Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
  • T4-0349/1995 summary

    Adopting the report by Mr CORNELISSEN (PPE, NL), the European Parliament approved the proposal subject to certain amendments calling for: - the local authorities and emergency services to be given advance warning of any transportation operation involving dangerous goods and persons not involved in the transportation to be prevented from traveling on trains carrying dangerous goods; - special rules for the transport of dangerous goods of local significance and for narrow-gauge, dock or mountain railways; - the facility to transport dangerous goods in tanker wagons from wide-gauge railways (in the CIS and the Baltic states) suitable for the change of gauge, provided that the required level of safety can be guaranteed.�

• 1995/07/12 Debate in Parliament
  • Debate in Parliament summary

    According to Mr KINNOCK, this proposal, which provided the Member States with a certain degree of flexibility, did not interfere with the principles of the internal market and the free movement of services. In this context, the Commission could take over Amendment No 5, which gave Member States the right to adopt rules governing the transport of dangerous goods by rail from or to the states of the former Soviet Union, outside the conditions laid down in the annexes, provided that an equivalent standard of safety was maintained. However, it rejected the following amendments as they were inappropriate: Amendment No 1 because the requirement for advance warning would only result in excessive bureaucracy and would not improve safety; Amendment No 2, which sought to prevent trains transporting dangerous goods from transporting passengers, as it would appear to be out of all proportion given that this ban was already in place for explosives and other highly dangerous substances; Amendment No 3 as it was too permissive as regards derogations; and Amendment No 4, which was not consistent with the proposal’s aim of eliminating where possible the obstacles to transport by rail.

• 1995/06/21 Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
  • A4-0152/1995
• 1995/04/25 Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
• 1994/12/09 Legislative proposal published
  • COM(1994)0573 summary

    The proposal for a directive seeks to harmonise the provisions of national laws on the carriage of dangerous goods by rail in order to ensure the same level of safety in international and domestic traffic, thereby allowing a single market to be created for these services in the Community. The Commission proposes that this be achieved by making the Regulations concerning International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Rail (RID), annexed to the Convention concerning international carriage by rail (COTIF), applicable to the transportation of dangerous goods by rail both between and within Member States. In addition, the proposal for a directive: - authorises the Member States to continue applying national standards compatible with the multimodal recommendations of the United Nations on the carriage of dangerous goods, with which the RID are gradually being harmonised, until such time as the revised annex to this directive brings them into line with the aforementioned recommendations; - specifies the cases in which current provisions of national legislation on the carriage of dangerous goods may be stricter or more lenient for certain goods and certain specific objectives. These cases must be notified to the Commission; - makes provision for Member States to continue to apply stricter rules to wagons belonging to or registered with their rail network, insofar as they are being used to carry dangerous goods as domestic traffic; - facilitates multimodal transport by recognising the safety standards for the carriage of dangerous goods by air and sea; - grants an exemption from the requirement to establish documents on the transport operation in several languages where the transport operation is confined to the territory of a single Member State; - grants an exemption of unlimited duration from the provisions of the directive for wagons, containers and tanks manufactured in accordance with national legislation which applied before the directive entered into force; - authorises the Member States to continue to manufacture and use equipment which meets national standards pending the definition and introduction, by reference, of the standards in the annex to the directive or until 31 December 1998 at the latest; - makes provision for an exemption authorising the use on the territory of a Member State of a different reference temperature for the carriage of liquefied gas and mixtures by tanker which is suitable for transport in the climatic zone in question; - authorises dangerous goods classed, packaged and labelled in accordance with national legislation before the date of transposition of the directive to be carried until 1 January 1998; - authorises domestic consignments to use emergency action codes in lieu of the danger identification code prescribed by the RID; - authorises a Member State to maintain more lenient provisions for certain small quantities of dangerous goods, such as those used for track maintenance; - allows Member States an exemption from the provisions of the directive for very short, non-recurrent transport; - makes provision for derogations, to be granted by the competent authority designated by the Member State, for example for new packaging not yet included in the RID; - sets a period of validity of two years from the date on which the proposal enters into force for existing agreements or tariff clauses concluded between two or more Member States or railway networks, provided that they were negotiated in accordance with the uniform rules for international carriage of goods by rail; - makes provision for wagons carrying dangerous goods to or from a third country to be used for the international transport of dangerous goods on Community territory, provided that the transport complies with the RID; - sets the comitology rules needed in order to monitor the harmonisation of provisions governing the carriage of dangerous goods by rail.�

• 1994/10/11 Additional information

Documents

• Legislative proposal published: COM(1994)0573
• Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading: A4-0152/1995
• Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
• Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T4-0349/1995
• Modified legislative proposal published: COM(1995)0424
• Council position published: 11303/2/1995
• Committee recommendation tabled for plenary, 2nd reading: A4-0074/1996
• Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
• Decision by Parliament, 2nd reading: T4-0168/1996
• Modified legislative proposal published: COM(1996)0235

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)