The Commission's amended proposal accepts the following European Parliament amendments:
- amendment 3 because the proposed recital argues for a staged opening of the market which is in line with the Treaty obligations and Commission proposal 95(337);
- amendment 4 because the proposed recital urges progress on technical harmonisation which the Commission recognises is important;
- amendment 6 because the proposed recital emphasises the importance of fair intermodal competition which is needed to ensure efficient optimal transport choices;
- amendment 7 because this results in a better definition;
- amendment 8 because this makes the definition more precise;
- amendment 9 because this would oblige Member States to establish a charging framework;
- amendment 11 because it takes into account of the fact that services may be provided by several managers or service providers;
- amendment 16 because it streamlines the text while retaining the principle proposed;
- amendment 19 is accepted in principle because it permits parties other than railway undertakings to be Applicants subject to national legislation. The effect has been implemented in Article 19 and a change of the definition in Article 2. In addition, references throughout the text to "authorised applicant" have been changed to "applicant";
- amendment 28 because the exchange of views between government services which it requires will be beneficial.
Moreover, the Commission accepts the principles contained within amendment 14 namely: simplification of the rules for passenger traffic, and the possibility to increase freight charges where it has been demonstrated that this does not damage intermodal competitiveness. Articles 8 and 9 have been reformulated in this spirit.
On the other hand, the Commission could not accept 15 of the other amendments proposed by the European Parliament. A number of these were considered to be superfluous, no longer of relevance given the evolution of the text, or lacking clarity.�