02.2026

National Rules in the EU Rail System

Over the last decade EU railway law has gradually moved from national competences towards a more central legal framework. The Fourth Railway Package reassigned competences, tightened technical harmonisation standards and expanded the role of the European Union Agency for Railways (ERA) in safety certification and vehicle authorisation.

National rules have not disappeared, but their place in the system has changed. They now function mainly as supplementary provisions in a framework that intends to reduce divergence and support interoperability, ultimately supporting the completion of the Single European Railway Area.

Under Directive (EU) 2016/797 and Directive (EU) 2016/798, harmonization is the rule and national regulation the exception. Technical Specification for Interoperability (TSIs), Common Safety Methods and related implementing regulations form the basis of the EU system. EU Member States may adopt or maintain national rules only where EU law leaves actual regulatory discretion, e.g. in cases where no TSI exist, where TSI contain open points, where specific cases are recognised, or where urgent safety concerns arise.

ERA Supervision

A practical example illustrates how this works in practice. In 2022, Lithuania introduced national safety rules establishing requirements for staff executing safety-critical tasks including cargo loading and other operational activities linked to rail safety. The national legislation regulated certification procedures, validity of staff certificates, mandatory training, periodic updates, and the duration and scope of training programmes. Formally, these measures relied on the regulatory space left to Member States under the Railway Safety Directive (EU 2016/798).

Such national competence, however, is subject to strict substantive and procedural limits. National rules must be necessary, proportionate and non-discriminatory. They cannot duplicate or contradict EU requirements. They must also be notified to ERA and pass a compliance assessment. Rules that are not notified, or that fail this assessment, cannot be enforced.

Lithuania notified the rules after their adoption, which triggered the EU review procedure. This notification was essential. Without it, the rules could not take effect within the harmonised EU system. ERA then examined whether the provisions overlapped with existing EU safety legislation, including rules on safety management systems. The assessment found that parts of the Lithuanian rules were not justified under EU law. They risked undermining consistent application of established EU safety requirements and reducing transparency. In that form, the rules could not serve as a valid regulatory basis.

This supervisory approach is part of the ERA’s broader “Rules Cleaning up Programme” which aims to systematically reduce national requirements that hinder market integration. Each notified national rule is classified, reviewed, and compared with harmonised regulations. Where provisions overlap, add unnecessary requirements or conflict with EU law, the Member State must amend or withdraw them. The process is technical but carries legal consequences. If unjustified rules remain in force, the European Commission may initiate infringement proceedings. The programme therefore operates both as a review mechanism and as a supervisory instrument supporting harmonisation.

The operational basis for Rules Cleaning up Programme is the Single Rule Database (SRD) managed by ERA. The SRD brings together all notified national rules, together with their scope and assessment status, in a central digital register. This increases regulatory transparency. Rules that are not properly notified or recorded are visible and cannot be relied upon in authorisation procedures. Operators and manufacturers can check in real time whether a requirement is valid, under review or recommended for withdrawal. The platform is straightforward to use. As of 13 February 2026, it lists 793 national regulations and 59 relating to fixed installations.

Practical Implications

The Lithuanian example reflects broader shift in regulatory approach. National Safety Authorities such as Lietuvos transporto saugos administracija in Lithuania or  Eisenbahn – Bundesamt (EBA) in Germany, continue to supervise activities and enforce safety regulations. However, their ability to shape the regulatory framework itself is increasingly limited by harmonisation at EU level and the ERA review. Regulatory authorities have not disappeared at national level, but they now operate largely within a framework set elsewhere.

For market participants, this structure has specific consequences. National rules continue to influence project risk, authorisation strategy and the choice of technical solutions. Infrastructure-specific parameters, existing requirements or transitional rules may affect vehicle authorisation or operational compatibility. The legal risk no longer arises primarily from the existence of national rules, but from uncertainty about their validity. A requirement applied in practice may later prove unenforceable if it has not been correctly notified or is contrary to EU law.

The conformity assessment must therefore cover not only the TSIs, but also the formal status and legal validity of any national rules referred to in the project. This includes verification of the notification in the SRD, review of ERA assessments and verification that the rule actually concerns a non-harmonised area. For complex cross-border projects, this validation stage is becoming increasingly more important than the technical conformity assessment itself.

The EU railway system is therefore moving towards a model in which national rules function only as justified exceptions within a centrally monitored framework. Harmonisation has not reduced regulatory complexity, but has shifted it from substantive technical differences to issues of legal validity, hierarchy of norms and procedural compliance. For practitioners, expertise now involves less comparison of national systems and more understanding of how remaining national requirements fit – or do not fit – into the EU’s integrated regulatory structure.

Grzegorz Kłodkowski

Attorney at Law (PL)