Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2023)752 - Passenger rights in the context of multimodal journeys - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2023)752 - Passenger rights in the context of multimodal journeys. |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2023)752 |
| date | 29-11-2023 |
1. CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL
• Reasons for and objectives of the proposal
The Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy confirms the ambition of the European Green Deal to achieve a 90% reduction in transport emissions by 2050.1 A key element of making transport more sustainable is achieving effective multimodality, where passengers who wish to travel long distances can do so by combining several modes of collective transport, thereby using the most sustainable and efficient mode for each leg of the journey. Protecting passengers along the way, in particular during travel disruptions, is key to enhance the attractiveness of such multimodal travels. Moreover, a failure to provide this protection could itself affect market growth for multimodal travel, with some passengers choosing to travel by car instead of collective transport (judging car travel to be both more convenient and more reliable).
The Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy announced measures to strengthen the regulatory framework for passenger rights. In that context, it observed that EU passenger rights should be better implemented and clearer for both carriers and passengers and that they should offer adequate assistance, reimbursement, possibly compensation when disruptions arise, and appropriate sanctions if the rules are not properly applied. The Commission announced that it will consider options and benefits to go further with a multimodal framework for passenger rights that is simplified, more consistent and harmonised.
Multimodal journeys occur when passengers combine at least two collective transport modes to reach a final destination, such as a flight with a rail service, or a rail service with a coach service. Firstly, multimodal travel typically involves travelling with a number of separate tickets that passengers buy individually (‘category C’ tickets). In addition, some intermediaries bundle such separate tickets into a multimodal product on their own initiative and sell it as such to passengers in one single commercial transaction (‘category B’ tickets). Finally, a limited number of carriers also offer multimodal journeys under a single contract of carriage (‘category A’ ticket). It is estimated that 91 million passengers performed multimodal journeys in 2019, and the number is expected to grow to 103.6 million in 2030 and 150.9 million in 2050. Expressed as share of the total number of passengers, multimodal passengers are estimated to increase from 0.7% in 2019 to 0.8% by 2050.
Today, while passengers who travel with only one collective transport mode (i.e. only by air, rail, bus or ship) enjoy rights in the event of travel disruptions,2 they are not entitled to the same rights when switching to another mode as part of their journey. This implies that there is also no clear framework for determining the respective obligations and liabilities of the different travel service providers involved in a multimodal journey. National legal frameworks generally do not include provisions covering multimodal transport either. In addition, the current offer of travel insurances for multimodal journeys remains limited. The rights of passengers in the context of multimodal journeys depend therefore on the terms and conditions of the specific contract(s) of carriage.
Consequently, passengers lack information on the extent of their rights before and during multimodal travel and are not given information in real-time on possible travel disruptions and security alerts when they need to switch between modes. Moreover, they can possibly suffer a different treatment with regard to contract conditions and tariffs for multimodal journeys on the basis of their nationality or of the place of establishment of the carrier or intermediary. In addition, those passengers do not receive assistance (e.g. reimbursement, re-routing, accommodation, meals and refreshments) during their journey in the event of a travel disruption that occurs when switching between transport modes. Furthermore, passengers have difficulties to complain to carriers and other possible relevant actors (e.g. terminal operators, ticket vendors) about the lack of information or assistance, nor do they have clarity on which national authority to contact in such cases. This lack of a specifically designated authority also leads to uncertainty on the enforcement of information to and assistance of passengers during multimodal travel. The consequences of the lack of information and assistance to passengers when switching modes include loss of connections and money for citizens and biased decisions from citizens towards less sustainable/climate and environmentally friendly solutions.
The lack of rules for multimodal journeys also means that persons with disabilities and persons with reduced mobility (PRM) are not entitled to any particular assistance under EU law when transferring between transport modes, including at multimodal connecting points such as air-rail hubs. In the absence of such assistance, they will not be able to benefit from a seamless travel experience similar to that of other passengers.
Therefore, the objectives of this proposal are to ensure:
- non-discrimination between passengers with regard to transport conditions and the provision of tickets;
- minimum and accurate information to be provided to passengers in an accessible format and in a timely manner to passengers;
- passengers’ rights in the event of disruption, in particular in the context of a missed connection between different transport modes;
- non-discrimination against, and assistance for, persons with disabilities and persons with reduced mobility;
- the definition and monitoring of service quality standards;
- the handling of complaints;
- general rules on enforcement.
This initiative is part of the Commission Work Programme 2023 under Annex II (REFIT initiatives), under the heading ‘An Economy that Works for People’.
• Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area
The Union law on passenger rights already raises the standards of protection for passengers when they travel by air, rail, sea and inland waterways, and bus and coach. In particular, these Regulations contain provisions on information and assistance to passengers which apply to each of these transport modes considered separately. This proposal aims to complement these existing rules by ensuring that passengers enjoy a similar level of protection where they switch between these transport modes during a journey.
This proposal is consistent with the proposal amending Regulations (EC) No 261/2004, (EC) No 1107/2006, (EU) No 1177/20, (EU) No 181/2011 and (EU)2021/782 as regards enforcement of passenger rights in the Union.3 The rules on better application and enforcement of Union rules on passenger rights in this Regulation are fully aligned with that Regulation.
• Consistency with other Union policies
This proposal is consistent with the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1926 on Multimodal Travel Information Services (MMTIS).4 This Regulation requires data holders (e.g. transport authorities, transport operators and infrastructure managers) to make data on transport networks (including data on transport services such as timetables and hours of operation) accessible to data users, via national access points established by the Member States, when the data is available in a digital machine-readable format. It is also consistent with the proposal for the revision of the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/19265. This revision extends this requirement by gradually adding, from December 2025 to December 2028, dynamic data types such as real-time arrival and departure times. This is of essential importance for this proposal regarding real-time information to passengers about travel disruptions when switching modes. This will be further supported by the proposed amendment of the ITS Directive.6 This amendment should ensure that ITS applications in the field of road transport enable seamless integration with other modes of transport, such as rail or active mobility, thus facilitating a shift to those modes whenever possible, to improve efficiency and accessibility.
This proposal is also consistent with the Communication on a common European mobility data space (EMDS), which outlines the proposed way forward for the creation of a common European mobility data space, including its objectives, main features, supporting measures and milestones. Its objective is to facilitate access, pooling and sharing of data from existing and future transport and mobility data sources.7 With regard to the exchange of real-time information in a business-to-business context, this proposal is also relevant in the context of the proposal for a Data Act, which addresses important aspects of data sharing, such as compensation, dispute settlement or technical protection measures.8 The proposal on establishing a framework for a European Digital Identity could also play a role where it introduces European Digital Identity Wallets.9 In light of the benefits in terms of security, convenience and accessibility, Member States should encourage the use of European Digital Identity Wallets for identification and authentication in multimodal transport scenarios, particularly aiding vulnerable persons or persons with disabilities.
Moreover, it should be clarified that the rules on package travel under Directive (EU) 2015/230210 and the proposal to revise it,11 are also consistent with this proposal. Albeit both deal with travel, they concern two separate markets. Whereas this proposal – in line with the existing legislation on passenger rights and the proposal to amend these12– exclusively deals with passenger transport services (e.g. a combination of a rail and bus service), the rules on package travel cover a combination of different travel services offered by an organiser (e.g. a package combining a flight and hotel accommodation). This proposal also clarifies that where a right to reimbursement arises under Directive (EU) 2015/2302, it should apply instead of this Regulation with regard to single multimodal contracts. Moreover, it specifies that this Directive should apply where an organiser combines transport services for the purpose of a multimodal journey as part of a package.
2. LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY
• Legal basis
Article 91(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) serves as the legal basis for the adoption of EU legislation related to a common transport policy. Furthermore, pursuant to Article 100(2) TFEU the Union legislator may lay down appropriate provisions for sea and air transport. The proposal is based on Article 91(1) and Article 100(2) TFEU.
• Subsidiarity (for non-exclusive competence)
Passenger rights for travel by air, rail, bus and coach (for long distance journeys), sea and inland waterways are already enshrined in EU law,1 and it is only urban/short-distance passenger transport that has been mostly left within the jurisdictions of Member States. The current proposal seeks to address the lack of rights for passengers who travel using a combination of these modes. Without harmonisation of the rules protecting passengers during such journeys, carriers, intermediaries and multimodal hub managers would have to work under different regimes. Passengers would be subject to multiple rules and find it difficult to know and insist on their rights. Moreover, several regimes might apply to transport contracts for multimodal journeys between Member States. For these reasons, national rules, even assuming that they gave passengers a high level of protection, would not achieve essential Union objectives and would even frustrate their achievement. In sum, this initiative seeks to address a gap in EU legislation which, if left at national level, would create the risk of distortions or potential negative spill-over effects.
• Proportionality
As detailed in chapter 7 of the Impact Assessment accompanying this proposal, none of the policy options goes beyond what is necessary to reach the overall policy objectives.
• Choice of the instrument
The impact assessment evidenced that regulatory measures are necessary to achieve the objective of the initiative, whose main objective is to ensure an adequate level of protection of passenger in the context of multimodal journeys. The rules established by the present proposal should be applied in a uniform and effective manner across the European Union. A Regulation that is directly applicable appears to be the most appropriate instrument to ensure a coherent implementation of the measures envisaged in all EU Member States, while reducing the risk of distortion within the single market, which could result from differences into how EU Member States transpose the requirements into national law. A Regulation as a legal instrument has already been chosen by the EU in order to protect the rights of passengers travelling respectively by air, railways, bus and coach, and sea and inland waterways.
3. RESULTS OF EX-POST EVALUATIONS, STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS
• Ex-post evaluations/fitness checks of existing legislation
Since no legislation currently exists, no ex-post evaluation or fitness check was carried out.
• Stakeholder consultations
For the impact assessment, stakeholders’ input was gathered by various means, including an open public consultation (OPC) and targeted consultations by an external contractor through online questionnaires, interviews and workshops. Both qualitative input (opinions, views, suggestions) and quantitative information (data, statistics) were sought.
The stakeholders included participants from the industry, groups representing passengers/consumers, persons with disabilities and persons with reduced mobility (PRMs), and public authorities, i.e. those affected by the policy, those who apply it and those with a vested interest in it.1
Contents
- Problem aspects
- Policy objectives
- Policy measures
- Exploratory study
- Impact assessment
- Sustainable Development Goals
- Climate consistency check
- Chapter I: General provisions
- Chapter II: Transport contracts and information
- Chapter III: Liability in the event of missed connections
- Chapter IV: Persons with disabilities and reduced mobility
- Chapter V: Service quality and complaints
- Chapter VI: Information and enforcement
- Chapter VII: Final provisions
- Annexes
“Passengers are not protected by existing rights when switching between transport modes”: 89 out of 145 respondents to the targeted questionnaire strongly or somewhat agree that the problem is important, while 26 respondents fully or somewhat disagree. The latter are mainly carriers (for all modes) and their umbrella organisations, who during the interviews and the dedicated workshop argued that it is too early to regulate the sector, as a legislative framework might disrupt an underdeveloped but emerging industry. In the OPC, 70% (117 out of 166) of respondents agreed somewhat/fully that the problem is important. In reply to the call for evidence, one passenger organisation claimed that the certainty of reaching the destination must be always guaranteed, even in the case of serious delays and independently from the travel mode(s) used.
“Persons with disabilities or reduced mobility (PRM) are not provided with assistance when switching between transport modes”: 50% (69 out of 138) of respondents agree that this is an important problem, while 16% (22 out of 138) strongly or somewhat disagree, 14% (19 out of 138) are neutral and 20% (28 out of 138) expressed no opinion. In the OPC, 57% (95 out of 167) of respondents consider this to be an important problem.
71% (101 out of 143) of respondents to the targeted questionnaire agree with the objective of proposing an adequate framework of rules for the protection of passengers who experience travel disruptions when changing from one transport mode to another, while 11% (16 out of 143) disagree with this objective. In the OPC, 63% (104 out of 165) of respondents assess the objective’s relevance as high or medium-high, while 16% (26 out of 165) believe it is of low/medium-low relevance.
Most consumer organisations replying to the targeted questionnaire expressed support for a legislative measure to ensure that carriers and ticket vendors provide additional information to multimodal passengers. Airlines and their representative organisations indicated that they could not be legally bound to provide information that they often do not have (connecting times and connecting journeys) and pointed out that providing real-time information on journey disruption is unfeasible if passengers booked via a ticket vendor. Umbrella organisations explained that this measure would increase operational costs mainly due to the necessary updates of the IT systems supporting booking arrangements and to additional resources needed to identify the relevant information. Ticket vendors were less supportive of the provision of real-time information and claimed that such a solution would only be feasible if carriers were obliged to share information with intermediaries.
As to the introduction of a right for passengers to be reimbursed or re-routed in case of a travel disruption, most passenger organisations replying to the targeted survey stated that the legislative measure would bring a very strong or strong contribution, while a slight majority of carriers for rail, waterborne, bus and coach, believe that the legislative measure would have a moderate or slight contribution. Nearly all intermediaries replying to the targeted survey agreed that the proposed measure would have a strong contribution, if implemented as a legislative measure, and provided that there are B2B agreements with respective liabilities. As to the introduction of a single point of contact for PRMs at multimodal passenger hubs, one PRM representative underlined during the dedicated workshop that, as PRMs require different types of assistance, there would be many issues to consider in defining the role/scope of the SPC and expressed concerns if the measure was soft law. One interviewed PRM organisation remarked that the SPC would be of considerable help to PRMs to obtain assistance and relevant information. 10 out of 17 airlines stated that the measure would bring a (very) strong contribution. During the workshop, airlines and their umbrella organisation expressed their support for it, while stressing the importance of establishing clear channels of communication and defining the scope of the services to be provided. One interviewed organisation of airlines argued that the SPC should be the terminal operator, as in the case of air transport. 6 out of the 11 infrastructure and terminal managers replying to the targeted survey believe that the measure would (very) strongly contribute towards the policy objective.
• Collection and use of expertise
The Commission carried out an exploratory study on passenger rights in the multimodal context that was published in 2019.2 The results of this study were taken into account, in particular with regard to the identification of the legal gaps and the size of the multimodal passenger market. The study observes that the mode-oriented approach of the five existing passenger rights Regulations can potentially lead to legal gaps and, overall, an insufficient coverage of passenger rights in a multimodal context. The availability of data also constitutes a limitation in terms of both the scope and the detail of the analysis.
The impact assessment has been based on research and analyses done by the Commission. The Commission also contracted an external, independent consultant to support the impact assessment in specific tasks, i.e. the assessment of the costs and benefits as well as the open public consultation and targeted consultation (by means of interviews and workshops). The external support study will be published alongside this proposal.
• Impact assessment
An impact assessment report was submitted to the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) on 7 June 2023. The RSB subsequently issued a positive opinion with reservations on 7 July 2023. In particular, it identified a number of shortcomings in the report pertaining to the description of the scale of the problem and the magnitude of its consequences; the description of the benefits of the options and the assessment of the proportionality of the preferred option; as well as the outline of the administrative and adjustment costs as part of the One In, One Out assessment3. These shortcomings were all addressed in the final impact assessment report which is submitted together with this proposal, in particular by an improved description of the size of the multimodal market and the current market failure in mitigating the problem; the magnitude of the consequences of the problem in terms of the lack of information and assistance during multimodal journeys; the benefits in terms of hassle costs savings for consumers, carriers, intermediaries and national public authorities; the comparison of the options, including with regard to proportionality; and the classification of one-off costs for implementing real-time information provisions and integrating the communication systems to multimodal passengers as adjustment costs rather than administrative costs.
The policy measures included in the three policy options addressing problem 2 of this impact assessment (“Insufficient protection of passengers during multimodal journeys”) are differentiated between the three ticket categories (A-B-C) presented above. The table below contains an overview of the different policy options, while taking into account these different ticket categories.
| Category A (Single contract) | Category B (Separate tickets combined and sold by ticket vendor) | Category C (Separate tickets at passenger’s own initiative) | |
| PO 2.1 | Pre-purchase information (PM B.1) Basic set of passenger rights (PM B.3a) Complaint-handling by industry and NEBs (PM B.7 & B.8) | Pre-purchase information (PM B.1) Complaint-handling by industry and NEBs (PM B.7 & B.8) | Pre-purchase information (PM B.1) Complaint-handling by industry and NEBs (PM B.7 & B.8) |
| PO 2.2 | Pre-purchase information (PM B.1) Real-time information (PM B.2) Basic set of passenger rights (PM B.3a) Single Point of Contact (PM B.5 & B.6) Complaint-handling by industry and NEBs (PM B.7 & B.8) | Pre-purchase information (PM B.1) Real-time information (PM B.2) Information on separate nature of tickets (PM B.4a) Single Point of Contact (PM B.5 & B.6) Complaint-handling by industry and NEBs (PM B.7 & B.8) | Pre-purchase information (PM B.1) Single Point of Contact (PM B.5 & B.6) Complaint-handling by industry and NEBs (PM B.7 & B.8) |
| PO 2.3 | Pre-purchase information (PM B.1) Real-time information (PM B.2) Enhanced set of passenger rights (PM B.3b) Single Point of Contact (PM B.5 & B.6) Complaint-handling by industry and NEBs (PM B.7 & B.8) | Pre-purchase information (PM B.1) Real-time information (PM B.2) Information on separate nature of tickets (PM B.4b) Single Point of Contact (PM B.5 & B.6) Complaint-handling by industry and NEBs (PM B.7 & B.8) | Pre-purchase information (PM B.1) Single Point of Contact (PM B.5 & B.6) Complaint-handling by industry and NEBs (PM B.7 & B.8) |
The impact assessment concluded that policy option PO 2.2 was the preferred option. The impact assessment found that it is the most efficient and effective policy option, as it ensures a fair balance between the effectiveness of the intervention in achieving the objective of increasing the protection of passengers (including PRM) in the context of multimodal journeys on the one hand, and efficiency in terms of costs for industry, on the other, given that this market is under development. PO 2.2 was found to also be the most proportionate measure and the most coherent in terms of internal and external coherence as well.
The initiative contributes towards Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) #10 Reduce inequality within and among countries (regarding passengers with disabilities and reduced mobility), #13 Climate action (enhanced passenger rights may incentivise people to use more public transport instead of private cars), and #16 Provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions (enhanced and accessible means of redress for passengers and better tools for enforcement for the administration).
The proposal is consistent with climate neutrality objective set out in the European Climate Law and the Union 2030 and 2050 targets and contributes to achieve SDG #13 Climate action as mentioned above.
• Regulatory fitness and simplification
This initiative is part of the Commission Work Programme 2023 under Annex II (REFIT initiatives), under the heading ‘An Economy that Works for People’. It has an important REFIT dimension in terms of the simplification of the rules for passengers travelling in a multimodal context.
In particular, a strong simplification potential resides in the improved information on the type of ticket that passengers are travelling with during a multimodal journey. Currently, they would not have easy access to such information, if at all available. Multimodal passengers would also have improved redress tools by means of complaint-handling procedures on the level of both industry and national authorities, making it easier for them to assert their rights. Together with increased rights in the event of missed connections between transport services (reimbursement or re-routing), this corresponds to a potential for cost savings for passengers. For PRM in particular, there is also an important efficiency potential where they would not only have a right to free assistance when travelling with a single multimodal contract, but would also have the possibility to receive a coordinated assistance when transferring at multimodal hubs (Single Points of Contact), where they currently would have to submit several assistance requests to carriers and terminal operators.
The proposal would necessarily imply a regulatory burden given that there are currently no rules protecting passengers undertaking multimodal journeys. However, there is a significant mitigating factor in this context, especially for transport operators, where they already apply most measures in the context of travels within a single mode of transport (e.g. reimbursement or re-routing, care, PRM assistance) – only the part of the journey when the passenger is switching between transport modes was not taken into consideration until now. In addition, carriers and intermediaries that qualify as SMEs would be exempted from the proposed rules on the provision of real-time information (Articles 5 and 6 of the proposal.)
The impact on EU competitiveness or international trade is expected to be largely neutral.
The proposal takes the digital environment into account, in particular with regard to the provision of real-time information on e.g. disruptions and delays - which are ideally also delivered by digital communication means – and the suggested rules on complaint-handling, where both companies and national enforcement bodies need to ensure that passengers can submit complaints both offline and online. The proposal also considers the increasing presence of online travel agents who would be willing to offer a combination of transport services to prospective passengers. This is not only reflected in terms of rules on the sharing of travel information, but also with regard to the liability of intermediaries selling a combination of ticket for different transport services.
• Fundamental rights
Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights requires that Union policies ensure a high level of consumer protection. Article 26 of the Charter calls for the integration of persons with disabilities and requires Member States to take measures to ensure their independence, social and occupational integration, and participation in the life of the community. Strengthening the rights of passengers travelling in a multimodal context in the EU will further raise the overall high level of consumer protection.
The obligation to share passengers’ personal data has an impact on the right to protection of personal data under Article 8 of the Charter. This obligation is necessary and proportionate in light of the objective of ensuring that consumers are effectively protected in accordance with Article 38 of the Charter. In addition, to further mitigate the effects on data protection, data protection safeguards are implemented, namely purpose limitation and a clear retention period. Further provisions of the proposal concerning the use of passengers’ details contribute to respect the right to protection of personal data under Article 8 of the Charter by clearly laying down which personal data can be used for specified purposes (for informing, reimbursing and rerouting the passenger as well as for safety and security reasons) and under which conditions.
4. BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS
The proposal has no implications for the EU budget.
5. OTHER ELEMENTS
• Implementation plans and monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements
The Commission will monitor the implementation and effectiveness of this initiative on the basis of progress indicators mentioned in chapter 9 of the Impact Assessment. Five years after the entry into force of the proposed legislation, the Commission will evaluate whether its objectives were reached.
In its Communication on ‘Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’1, the Commission committed to rationalise and simplify reporting requirements without undermining the related policy objectives. This proposal is in line with those aims. Although it creates a new obligation for carriers offering single multimodal contracts to publish every two years a report about the implementation of their service quality standards with key performance indicators related to passenger rights (e.g. missed connections, complaint handling, cooperation with the representatives of persons with disabilities), these reports are absolutely necessary for monitoring and enforcing passenger rights. Carriers indicated in the stakeholder consultation that they already collect the data in question, and the frequency of reporting (only every two years) was chosen to keep the costs of implementing these measures low. In addition of being a valuable source of information for NEBs with limited resources to carry out their monitoring and enforcement tasks, these reports will allow passengers to take informed decisions about which carrier to choose based on the quality of their performance and could also encourage competition between carriers based on the quality of their performance. In the same vein, the obligation for a biennial reporting by NEBs on actions taken to ensure the application of the Regulation and relevant statistics on e.g. complaints would allow the Commission in its task to verify the implementation of the Regulation.
• Detailed explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal
The structure of the Regulation is inspired by the existing Regulations on passenger rights, and in particular the most recent Regulation (EU) 2021/782 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations. It will consist of the following main chapters:
Chapter I contains the general provisions of the Regulation specifying the subject matter and objectives, the scope and the definitions. In addition, the complementary nature of the proposal to the existing Union law on passenger rights is outlined.
Chapter II contains provisions on transport contracts and information to passengers by carriers, intermediaries and multimodal hub managers. It describes the information to be given to passengers before and during their journey (in real-time), and the modalities for exchange and cooperation on the matter between different types of undertakings involved.
Chapter III contains provisions on the assistance of passengers (reimbursement, re-routing, care) having a single multimodal contract in the event of a missed connection of a subsequent transport service. In addition, it spells out the reimbursement process where such contract was acquired with an intermediary. It also clarifies the liability of carriers and intermediaries offering combined multimodal tickets. Finally, it introduces a common form for reimbursement and compensation requests.
Chapter IV outlines rules for the protection and assistance of persons with disabilities and reduced mobility (PRM) in the context of multimodal travel. Next to detailing the right to transport and the assistance of PRM having a single multimodal contract, it introduces the establishment of Single Points of Contact at multimodal passenger hubs. These hubs correspond to the multimodal passenger hubs that have to be developed in every urban node of the TEN-T network by 2030 under the proposal for a Regulation on Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network.2
Chapter V contains rules on service quality and on the handling of complaints by carriers, intermediaries and multimodal hub managers.
Chapter VI contains provisions on information to passengers on their rights as well as the enforcement of the Regulation. With regard to the latter, it includes rules on the designation of a national enforcement body, the risk-based approach to the monitoring of compliance with passenger rights, the sharing of information by the relevant undertakings with national enforcement bodies and cooperation between Member States and the Commission.
Chapter VII contains provisions with regard to reporting obligations and the committee procedure.
Annex I sets out the list of urban nodes where multimodal passenger hubs and the corresponding Single Points of Contact need to be established and operated.
Annex II contains the minimum service quality standards that carriers offering single multimodal contracts and multimodal hub managers need to uphold.