The Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) has made a decision on Arriva's complaint against ProRail, which concerned the rejection of applications for new train services in the Northern Netherlands.
Arriva had accused ProRail of incorrect capacity allocation, but the ACM ruled that the complaint was partly justified. The case revolves around the allocation of track capacity for local trains and peak-hour trains on busy routes such as Leeuwarden-Zwolle and Groningen-Zwolle.
complaint unfounded
For the Leeuwarden-Zwolle and Groningen-Zwolle local train services, the ACM ruled that ProRail had acted correctly. These train services fall under so-called “open access services”, for which no concession has been granted. The Capacity Allocation Decree stipulates that trains with a concession, such as those of the NS, are given priority over open access services. According to ProRail, there was no more physical space on the track to accommodate the Arriva local trains. The ACM confirmed that this decision is in line with the regulations and considered this part of the complaint unfounded.
rush-hour trains
Arriva had also submitted applications for 22 peak-hour train journeys per day between Groningen and Zwolle, and routes such as Leeuwarden-Heerenveen. Although there was physical space to run these trains, ProRail largely rejected the applications. According to ProRail, the reason for this was technical limitations, including risks to track stability, level crossing safety and the energy supply.
The ACM ruled that ProRail had not been sufficiently transparent about the rejection of these peak-hour trains. In its decision, the ACM stated that ProRail had not made it sufficiently clear how technical limitations exactly affect the distribution of capacity. Furthermore, the necessary risk analyses, which could have determined the actual consequences, had not yet been carried out.
The ACM has imposed a number of binding obligations on ProRail to become more transparent in its procedures. For example, ProRail must adjust the Network Statement for 2026 by including clear criteria and standards that explain how technical limitations affect capacity.
In addition, ProRail must specify when and by whom additional investigations into technical risks must be carried out. ProRail was also instructed to go through the coordination phase for the 2025 timetable again. The ACM stated that ProRail had not shared information on time and in full during the first procedure about the criteria used to reject the peak-hour trains. As a result, a new distribution decision must be made for the routes where the Arriva peak-hour trains were planned.
overload declaration
The ACM also criticizes the fact that ProRail did not earlier designate the infrastructure in question as “overloaded”. ProRail is legally obliged to take such a decision when expected capacity requests cannot be adequately distributed. According to the ACM, ProRail should have done this in mid-2023, after which a capacity analysis could have taken place. This would have provided more clarity about possible risks such as track stability and level crossing safety at the start of the distribution for 2025. ProRail must indicate in the Network Statement 2026 how it will deal with such situations in the future.
as a profession
The ACM decision does not mean that the discussion is completely over. Parties involved, such as ProRail or Arriva, can appeal to the Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (CBb) within six weeks. This offers the opportunity to further legally challenge the decision.
With this judgment, the ACM emphasizes the importance of transparency and a fair distribution of rail capacity, especially in a region where the demand for train connections is growing. The decision puts pressure on ProRail to improve its processes and partly agrees with Arriva in its criticism.
