Can Corbyn renationalise the railways?

The EU flag: like a ref flag to a bull


New Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has suggested he would consider re-nationalising the railways.  In response, UKIP leader Nigel Farage stated that this was impossible due to EU Directive 2012/34/EU, which he says requires railways in member states to be in private ownership.

EU law is not my area of expertise; however, I have done my best to research this topic and from what I have found I must disagree with Mr Farage.

First, Directive 2012/34/EU does say in the preamble:
"In order to render railway transport efficient and competitive with other modes of transport, Member States should ensure that railway undertakings have the status of independent operators behaving in a commercial manner and adapting to market needs."

However, when you read through the directive (which is very long and very tediously drafted) it does not actually appear to require the railway to be in private ownership.  At most, the directive requires the track to be owned independently of the trains and for the trains to be operated in a commercial manner.  That is not the same as saying that the train operators cannot be a publicly owned body... as they are in France.  Provided the train operating company is operated on a commercial footing then they can be in public ownership is my reading.  The reason for this requirement is that EU law appears to impose limits on state-aid that can be given to businesses, presumably to avoid prejudicing competitors in other member states that do not benefit from state funding.

Further, Article 345 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) specifically states, "The Treaties shall in no way prejudice the rules in Member States governing the system of property ownership."  When the question of nationalisation was put before the Court of Justice of the European Free Trade Association States (more commonly known as the EFTA Court), the Court held that a member state "...may legitimately pursue the objective of establishing a system of public ownership over these properties, provided that the objective is pursued in a non-discriminatory and proportionate manner".  In that case, the property in question was Norwegian waterfalls but the same questions of proportionality and non-discrimination apply to railways in the same way.

So, does EU law prevent the UK (or any other member state) re-nationalising the railway, or any other privately owned business?  The answer appears to be "no".
Location: Europe

Comments

  1. Anonymous24 September 2015 at 12:33

    SNCF, the French state owned (mainly) train operating company, does indeed run the TGV, intercity and regional trains plus manage the stations. However, other train operating companies and national railways can operate trains over French metals. Marseille St Charles is a good example of this with RENF, Trenitalia; Eurostar, ICE plus others. Also goods carrying companies also operate their own trains over French metals.
    Branson might have to take a heart pill if he forced to compete with SNCF on UK metals. I bought two 1st class return tickets Toulouse to Marseille (c500km) a couple of weeks back at 120€ return for both of us. I checked at the same time for two 1st London to Preston tickets to travel on the same date and it was £600.

    Paysan

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Are items referred to in s.9’s as exhibits bound to be served?

  Background - CPS served a witness statement on me that exhibited two BWV clips that are potentially relevant to the Crown’s case and may have some relevance to the defence case insofar as they are likely to show the lighting and weather at the time events happened. Somebody has listed the clips as unused material rather than putting them in the exhibits folder that accompanies the served evidence. This raised an interesting (to me anyway) question about whether a party who exhibits an item in a statement is bound to serve it on their opponent. At court the judge took the view that the Crown were at liberty to classify items exhibited in s9s as unused material if they chose not to rely upon them in evidence. I took the view that if they are exhibited then they must be served along with the witness statement that exhibits the item and that the solution to a situation where the Crown say they are now unused is to edit the witness statement to remove the reference, by agreement with the
More gibberish >>

Is there twice as much violent crime in the UK versus the USA?

Image
The tweet from Charlie Kirk I came across a screenshot of a Twitter post while on Facebook this morning. The original post now has 11,000 retweets and 23,000 likes on Twitter. As you can see from the picture somebody called Charlie Kirk, who is a right-wing American commentator, claims that there are 933 violent crimes in the UK per 100,000 people. This is more than double the rate he claims for the USA where he says there are only 399 violent crimes per 100,000 people. The UK doesn’t feel that violent to me, so is it true? We’re all gonna die According to the FBI, in 2016 there were 1,248,185 violent crimes committed across the whole of the USA. That is an increase of 4.1% on the 2015 figure but still represented only 386.3 violent crimes per 100,000 people . So, Mr Kirk appears to be slightly overestimating the violent crime in the USA. I should say that I am using the 2016 figures as those are the latest available on the FBI website, so maybe he has slightly differe
More gibberish >>

Driving without insurance

Image
Insurance is a contract that remains in force until it expires or is cancelled As you may, or may not, know I specialise in motoring law and most of my work involves defending people accused of drink driving . With the drink driving often come other road traffic offences such as driving while disqualified and driving without insurance. It’s driving without insurance I want to talk about today because I think far too many police officers, solicitors, barristers and judges miss a key legal point when looking at these cases. I’ve received prosecution papers today for somebody accused of driving while disqualified and driving without insurance. The no insurance element is claim that the suspect did not tell the insurer about the disqualification. In his statement, the police officers says, “ [I] contacted [the insurer] who called me back informing me they would not consider the insurance policy valid as there were no convictions disclosed.” Looks like an open an
More gibberish >>