Interview with Reinhard Rack MEP

Publication date: 21 April 2009

Slovenia, fuel prices, tyres and road safety, Reinhard Rack MEP, comments on current mobility issues

Reinhard Rack, a professor of law at the University of Graz, has been an MEP since 1995. One of the most active members of the EP's committee on transport and tourism, Rack recently drew up a report on the Commission's Green Paper entitled “Towards a new culture for urban mobility”. He was also rapporteur on the 2004 EU tunnel safety directive. We spoke to him about current issues in mobility, such as the Slovenian vignette, but also on what directions the European Parliament's approach to transport issues will take.

Has the Commission been strong enough in taking action against Slovenia's discriminatory vignette?

The Commission has been more polite than strong. The Commission has pursued the infringement procedure and it has taken them a long time. Slovenia has given excuses and explanations, first saying they were in the midst of the EU Presidency. Then there were national elections. But everyone knew that the Slovenian vignette system was discriminatory. EU infringement procedures take a very long time, particularly if you do not put up the pressure. The next step in the form of an official European Commission infringement procedure was imminent. This could have happened between Easter and the summer vacation.

Slovenia has made use of evasive tactics, notably by changing the vignette regime and offering a new product from 1 July. This will cost probably EUR 95 for one year. There will be a one-week vignette costing EUR 15. For people travelling to the Adriatic coast, they would have to pass through Slovenia. Practically, all these people will have to pay for two seven-day tickets. This is just five euro less than the half year vignette. That is a slap in the face for Slovenia's neighbours.
 
Slovenia is not alone in being criticised for a discriminatory road pricing scheme?

It is also a question of style and degree and how you react when caught. When the Austrians started their vignette system, they notified the EU. The Commission immediately reacted by saying that Austria must introduce a short term vignette. Vienna then chose a two-week vignette. Other countries like Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic have followed the Austrian system. In all these cases, the Commission stepped in to say there needed to be a short term vignette. Only Slovenia refused at first to talk to the Commission. Later they came up with excuses as to why it was not possible to change things.

Many of the tourists are not visiting Slovenia, but just passing through. Should they not pay for using the highway?

Slovenia has one of the shortest motorway systems, but is asking for the highest prices. There are some 20 to 40 km of missing links in their system between Austria and Croatia. Now, Slovenia wants to make tourists pay for that. There are other examples, take the motorway from Budapest to Vienna with private highways for example. But at least the private highways offer something for the money. In Slovenia's case, there is a roundabout in the town Maribor, where the police are waiting for you. It is like in the middle ages!
 

Has the European Parliament achieved enough in the past session?

A lot has been achieved in the last five years. This is also true for the last 25 years. We have aimed at guaranteeing mobility and safety. On top of this, certainly during the last five years, has come the idea of achieving more sustainable transport whether in terms of climate change, environment or energy. We must combine the needs of a mobile society with a more environment-friendly transport system. The question is how fast we can move in the present economic situation.

The price of oil per barrel is less than a third of what it was a year ago. Prices at petrol stations remain high. Is there something wrong with the market?

Prices have not been a major issue for the European Commission. Action has been focused more on general issues of competition and national private market rule-giving. The Commission has not looked into using infringement procedures at a European level and has left action to the national level. There is also a question of tax. There should be greater efforts at harmonisation. But the EU is also concentrating on the more technical aspects of gaining more fuel efficiency. The same is true for air and rail transport. We are also continuing work on improving interconnections in the transport system on a European level.

In improving the energy efficiency of tyres has Parliament not forgotten safety?

I do not think so. We have a fairly good record in general when it comes to improving safety. What is important is the lower consumption of energy. This also has much to do with consumers’ behaviour. The cars that use less petrol are on the market, but people are not using them or they are too expensive.

FIA clubs have been warning that Europe will not meet its targets for reducing road deaths. What should be done?

This is a complex question. Accidents often happen because road infrastructure is not as good as it should be. Improving road infrastructure is something I have tried to support in the context of the trans-European transport network (TEN-T) programme. There was also the tunnel safety directive. New technology can also offer solutions like eCall (ed. which sends information like airbag deployment, impact sensor information and GPS coordinates to local emergency stations). Europe must send a clear signal here. We should put more pressure on consumers and car-makers to push forward newer and better technology. This is something that producers of cars, too, will profit from. Japanese manufacturers have proven this to be true with their efficiency and safety features. Some European cars are following this concept. German manufacturers, though, have gone into the higher price sector. Brussels must send a clear signal as to what will be the general standards.