Will the Overland Transport Agreement undermine public services?

The Agreement “on the Carriage of Goods and Passengers by Rail and Road”¹ is a version of the Bilateral Agreement I of the same name tailored to the institutional framework. Its most striking features are: It gives the green light to private railway companies such as Flixtrain from other EU countries that are pushing to use our railways – as a counterpart to Flixbus, which has been established on Swiss roads for several years (“The world is waiting for you. Choose from over 3,000 destinations in 40+ countries”). It imposes the entire institutional superstructure on the currently sovereign regulation of the Swiss transport system; and it contains a “State Aid Protocol” with a fundamental ban on aid, which, according to the Federal Council, is allegedly not applicable to domestic public transport – so why the protocol?

In plain language: the agreement would undermine the tried-and-tested public service that is firmly rooted in the population and, despite all the damage done by the Swiss executive, is still uniquely citizen-oriented – reaching into every mountain valley.

Foreign railway companies are pushing
into the well-functioning public transport sector

Public services are an indispensable part of the Swiss model. They are closely linked to Switzerland’s sovereignty and the strong direct democratic rights of its citizens. For decades, we Swiss have been fighting against the privatisation of hydroelectric power plants, the closure of post offices and for equal access to rail and bus services in rural and mountain areas. Although not entirely successful, the people have repeatedly forced the authorities to find solutions that are reasonably fair to the population throughout the country.
  Every citizen who wants to preserve this public service must say no to the Swiss-EU package, if only because of the complete overhaul of the Overland Transport Agreement (OTA). According to the Federal Council, the purpose of the OTA is to “open up international rail passenger transport” (“Overland Transport Fact Sheet”). This means that “Railway undertakings and international groupings established on the territory of one Contracting Party shall have the right of transit and the right of access to railway infrastructure in the other Contracting Party, for the purpose of operating an international service, under the conditions specified in the Union legislation”. (Art. 24(1) OTA; emphasis added). The agreement applies to “the international carriage by rail of passengers”, but not to “purely domestic rail passenger carriage, meaning national long-distance, regional and local transport, in Switzerland” (Art. 2(2) OTA).
  In the case of “cross-border rail passenger transport”, the train crosses the Swiss border, “including the right to pick up passengers at any station located along the international route and to set them down at another, including in cases where such stations are located in the territory of the other Contracting Party, provided that the principal purpose of the service is to carry passengers between stations located in the territory of one Contracting Party and stations located in the territory of the other Contracting Party.” (Added indent to Art. 3 para. 2 OTA). Whether the “principal purpose” of the group is actually to transport passengers from EU territory to Switzerland and vice versa is determined “by the relevant regulatory body or bodies” at the request of one of the parties (Art. 24 paragraph 1a new).
  This is not as complicated as the bureaucratic language of Brussels might suggest. A possible example: a train from Prague or Lisbon crosses the Swiss border and then travels through Switzerland, where it picks up and drops off passengers at various locations. From time to time, it returns abroad with Swiss passengers (once a week?). Well, it needs a free track, which is a problem on Switzerland’s densely packed routes. But if the SBB allocates one, the crucial question arises: is this “cross-border” or “purely domestic” transport? The ominous “relevant regulatory body or bodies” will find an answer that suits Flixtrain & Co. Because in “purely domestic” transport, they have no place in the institutional agreement either.

‘It is out of the question to destroy
Switzerland’s functioning public transport system
in order to reach an agreement with the EU’

This was stated by Matthias Hartwich, president of the Swiss Transport Workers’Union SEV², not so long ago, in March 2024. Hartwich, from Germany, warned the Swiss against liberalising rail transport. According to the trade unionist and social democrat, “liberalisation and the attempted IPO are responsible” for the decline of Deutsche Bahn. “DB has been running itself into the ground for thirty years in order to make profits. Now everything is falling apart.” Hartwich went on to say that the EU’s rail policy had contributed to this: “All the liberalisation measures have led to transport shifting to the roads, while Switzerland is by far the leader in this field.” Opening up Swiss rail transport to private international corporations such as Flixtrain would be a “breach of the dam,” Hartwich warned.³
  Today, the SEV union leadership is still critical of liberalisation, as Hartwich said in a recent interview, but hopes that the safeguards promised by the EU will be effective.⁴

Questionable stopgap measures
to protect Swiss public services
from the EU bureaucratic juggernaut

However, these “safeguards” are anything but secure, because the new Land Transport Agreement would require us to adopt current and future EU law. According to the “Land Transport Fact Sheet,” the Federal Council has negotiated a few exceptions to this: “National regular-interval passenger train services (regular-interval timetable) and national freight transport have priority, and their train paths are secured.”⁵ And: “EU railway companies […] may be required to integrate into the Swiss fare system. This means, for example, that they must recognise the GA Travelcards and the half-fare cards.”
  At first glance, this seems reassuring. But when you read the “exceptions from dynamic alignment” in Article 24a of the agreement, the wording leaves a lot of room for the ECJ to exercise its decision-making power. For example, paragraph 2 states that one permitted Swiss measure is “the application of Swiss capacity management instruments providing for a minimum number of train paths per hour for defined types of traffic […]”. The restrictions on Switzerland’s freedom of planning follow immediately: “Such instruments are subject to the principle of non-discrimination referred to in Article 1(3) of the Agreement.” And: “Undertakings planning and operating international rail passenger services in Switzerland are treated as interested parties within the existing Swiss consultation procedures under the Swiss capacity management instruments.”
  In plain language: Switzerland is a small, densely populated country with a challenging topography and an almost completely covered railway network. This means that the use of Swiss railway lines must be meticulously planned to ensure that Swiss public transport can maintain its punctuality and reliability. Especially on long-distance routes (Zurich-Bern-Geneva, Gotthard Transit, etc.), it would be a huge problem if private foreign railway companies wanted to get in on the action. Railway union rep Matthias Hartwich points out that “the number of free train paths in Switzerland is limited. The rail network has already reached its capacity limit.” He adds: “How do you intend to explain to the European Court of Justice that it is non-discriminatory for Flixtrain to only be allowed to operate in Switzerland at night?”⁶ And if Flixtrain executives were even allowed to interfere in the planning procedures of Swiss public transport companies for train path allocation in accordance with Art. 24a para. 2 – then “good luck and good night”!
  Today, SBB regulates the use of Swiss railways in cooperation with DB, the French SNCF and other European state railways. The Federal Council claims in its fact sheet that this would “continue to be possible without restriction”. However, this is highly doubtful, as cooperation between states on an equal footing would contradict the authoritarian EU system according to the “Institutional Protocol”⁷.
  Conclusion: The Federal Council’s claim that everything is fine with these few band-aid solutions is pure window dressing. We cannot leave our unique and highly efficient public service to profit-hungry private corporations from abroad and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice!

Swiss wages and
working conditions on Swiss railways

Swiss trade unions are legitimately concerned about the feared downward levelling of high wages and labour law regulations in Switzerland. Is everything okay here too? Federal Council’s factsheet: “EU railway undertakings must comply with Swiss wage and working conditions for their activities on sections of track in Switzerland.”
  This is less clear in EU language: Excluded from the adoption of EU law is “the right to include non-discriminatory provisions in the authorisations and concessions granted to railway transport undertakings [...] relating to social standards, such as local and sector-specific salary and working conditions in Switzerland.” (Art. 24a (4) of the Amending Protocol) Here, too, many questions remain unanswered.
  Take this example: A train from Slovenia with staff from a number of Eastern European EU countries passes through Switzerland and then leaves the country again, crossing the border into Austria. Do Swiss labour laws and Swiss wages apply to the staff from the moment they cross the border? In the middle of the working day? How can this be enforced and put into practice? Who will monitor this? Who will pay the administrative costs? Will Swiss working conditions also apply to staff on cross-border buses (Flixbus)?
  None of this is a done deal, as Matthias Hartwich confirmed in June 2025: “We don’t want wage and social dumping, but we want safety for passengers. It would be extremely dangerous if railway staff didn’t have to comply with working time regulations. We are engaged in intensive discussions with the federal government. The decisive factor is how effectively we can ensure that social standards will be complied with.”⁸
  Agreed – but the federal government alone cannot meet the expectations of the railway workers’ union. Flixtrain & Co will of course want to sell cheaper tickets than SBB and will not shy away from using institutional EU processes to undermine Swiss standards. Whether Swiss regulations on technical safety of railways and staff training requirements will also be watered down is beyond my knowledge. To answer that question, would require going through the numerous EU directives and regulations attached to the agreement.

A word on the prohibition of state aid

This issue is too important for Switzerland’s excellent public services to be dealt with briefly. However, it must at least be considered here, because the Land Transport Agreement includes a separate “State Aid Protocol”.⁹
  In its “factsheet land transport”, the Federal Council states: “As a public service, domestic public transport is exempt from state aid rules. This means that the tried-and-tested financing of domestic public transport remains unchanged.” This raises the question: if the prohibition on state aid does not apply to domestic transport in Switzerland, why is a protocol on state aid necessary for this agreement, including the obligation for Switzerland to set up a supervisory authority to monitor the compatibility of Swiss aid with the EU market?
  In any case, we would have to expect cuts in public services if rail transport were to be “opened up”. Switzerland invests a lot of money in the infrastructure and operation of regional transport. However, the agreement is likely to mean that funds will become scarcer. Railway union president Hartwich: “A private provider such as Flixtrain would be allowed to carry passengers on the Munich–Zurich route within Switzerland. If SBB were to lose market share, there would be a shortfall in funds for subsidies.”¹⁰ All these questions are worth closer examination. •

¹ “Protocol amending the Agreement between the Swiss Confederation and the European Community on the Carriage of Goods and Passengers by Rail and Road”. See https://www.europa.eda.admin.ch/en/consultation-swiss-eu-package
² SEV: formerly the “Swiss Railway Workers’ Union”
³ Gafafer, Tobias. “The German who warns of German conditions on Swiss railways”. In: Neue Zürcher Zeitung of 6 March 2024.
⁴ Gafafer, Tobias. “Trade unionist on EU deal: “Swiss wages must be paid on Swiss railways”.” Interview with Matthias Hartwich. In: Neue Zürcher Zeitung of 19 June 2025.
⁵ “The regular-interval timetable ensures that connections [...] work. Important centres are being developed into transport hubs: At Bern station, for example, long-distance trains are concentrated around the hour and half hour, and regional trains around the 15^th and 45^th minute.” https://news.sbb.ch/artikel/112279/die-sbb-faehrt-mit-takt-seit-40-jahren
⁶ Gafafer, Tobias. “The German who warns of German conditions on Swiss railways.” In: Neue Zürcher Zeitung of 6 March 2024
⁷ “Institutional Protocol to the Agreement between the Swiss Confederation and the European Community on the Transport of Goods and Passengers by Rail and Road.” For more details on the institutional framework of the Swiss-EU package, see a follow-up article.
⁸ Gafafer, Tobias. “Trade unionists on the EU deal: Swiss wages must be paid on Swiss rails.” Interview with Matthias Hartwich. In: Neue Zürcher Zeitung  of 19 June 2025
⁹ “State Aid Protocol to the Agreement between the Swiss Confederation and the European Community on the carriage of goods and passengers by rail and road”
¹⁰ Gafafer, Tobias. “The German who warns of German conditions on Swiss railways.” In: Neue Zürcher Zeitung  of 6 March 2024