Process of conflict resolution

highest efficiency of the usage of all the railway train*km paths allocated in acc. with the allocated path, respectively who had the infrastructure Rail Service Book)x100 lowest percentage of non-used paths access contract in the previous timetable The proportional distribution to the total number of requests. The number of pairs of allocated paths Ta shall be determined with the help of the formula: Tai=(Tsi/ΣTsi)*Tst where: Tai – pairs of paths allocated to each of the RUs The calculation of Tai results in the 7 number of pairs of paths allocated to Tsi – pairs of paths requested by each RU each applicant. that can be considered conflicting requests ΣTsi – the sum of all the requests for pairs of conflicting paths Tst – pairs of available paths for which conflicting requests have been submitted  CNCF „CFR”- SA QESMS Edition: 2 OPERATIONAL PROCEDURE Revision: 1 SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES OVER THE INFRASTRUCTURE Page: 11/11 TRAFFIC DIRECTORATE CAPACITY ALLOCATION Code PO 0-8.5-08 It shall be decided in favour of the 8 Impairment of railway station capacity request that least affects the capacity of the railway station. The commission provided for at Item 5.2.1. shall apply the criteria in the order set out above, as follows: a) Criteria 1-5 shall be eliminatory in the order mentioned; b) Criterion 5 shall be analysed on the basis of the applicant's statement at the time of submitting the path request. CFR shall reserve the right to sanction the relevant RU by calculating the Pa coefficient by including the volume of train-kms for the case when diesel traction rolling stock is used instead of the electric one (as indicated in the path request) in the volume of non-used train-kms. Exceptions are the cases due to the railway infrastructure; c) if at least one applicant did not hold a railway infrastructure access contract in the previous timetable, Criterion 6 shall not apply; d) By applying Criterion 6, there shall be determined the value of the non-usage coefficient for each applicant. In this case, the number of paths allocated to each applicant shall be determined after carrying out the following stages: d1) on the basis of the Pa coefficient determined for each applicant, a ranking shall be drawn up in descending order. Each applicant shall be assigned a place in this ranking. Each applicant shall receive a number of points according to the place he occupies in the ranking, as follows: - Place 1 receives N points, where N is the number of applicants; - Place 2 receives N-1 points; - Place 3 receives N-2 points; - .... d2) There shall be established for each applicant a share of the number of paths in dispute to be allocated to him, whereas this share shall be calculated with the help of the formula: 𝑁 𝑁−1 1 𝐶1 = 𝑆 ; 𝐶2 = 𝑆 ; ……; 𝐶𝑁 = 𝑆 where: S – represents the sum of all the points received by the applicants; N – number of applicants; C1........CN - share to be assigned to each applicant. e) If at least one applicant did not hold a railway infrastructure access contract in the previous timetable, Criterion 6 shall not apply, the number of allocated paths shall be assigned on the basis of the proportionality principle (Criterion 7).  CNCF „CFR”- SA QESMS Edition: 2 OPERATIONAL PROCEDURE Revision: 1 SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES OVER THE INFRASTRUCTURE Page: 12/11 TRAFFIC DIRECTORATE CAPACITY ALLOCATION Code PO 0-8.5-08 The result of the assessment shall be mentioned in a minutes in accordance with the template included in Annex No. 5. After the conclusion of the minutes, the Traffic Directorate/Division shall inform the RU, in writing, on the modality in which the dispute between the conflicting requests was settled, by using one of the templates included in Annexes No. 2 or 3, as appropriate. (4) The deadline for completing the analysis shall be 10 working days from the moment when CFR finds out that no agreement can be reached by using the coordination procedure. 5.2.4. Settlement of the Disputes related to the Conflicting Requests for Infrastructure Capacity Allocation, Other than Those related to Conflicting Requests (1) In case of any other disputes notified in writing by the RU, arising out of the request and allocation of the infrastructure capacity, the settlement shall be exclusively performed by means of consultations. The disputes shall be analysed by the commission provided for at Item 5.2.1. If all the RUs involved agree, in writing, with the disclosure of their identity (for which the RUs’ agreement has been requested), they shall be directly consulted. If at least one of the RUs does not agree with the disclosure of the identity or if, following the consultations, the parties do not reach a unanimously accepted solution, CFR shall decide to reject the complaint. (2) The deadline for completing the analysis shall be 10 working days from the moment when the RU’s notice is received, and the result of the analysis shall be recorded in a minutes, in accordance with the template included in Annex No. 4. (3) The RU shall be informed, in writing, on the modality in which the dispute was settled. 6. RESPONSIBILITIES 6.1. Head of the CAO (Traffic Directorate/Traffic Divisions within the RRB 1-8) • Settles the disputes related to the infrastructure capacity allocation in accordance with this procedure. • Transmits to the applicants the manner in which the disputes related to infrastructure capacity allocation have been settled. • Enforces the provisions of this procedure for settling the disputes related to infrastructure capacity allocation. • Takes part in the commission for settling the disputes related to infrastructure capacity allocation. 6.2. Deputy Head of the Central Traffic Regulator • Takes part in the commission for settling the disputes related to infrastructure capacity allocation. 6.3. Head of the Regional Traffic Regulator • Takes part in the commission for settling the disputes related to infrastructure capacity allocation. 6.4. Employee of the Traffic Directorate/Traffic Division within the RRB 1-8 • Takes part in the commission for settling the disputes related to the infrastructure capacity allocation.  CNCF „CFR”- SA QESMS Edition: 2 OPERATIONAL PROCEDURE Revision: 1 SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES OVER THE INFRASTRUCTURE Page: 13/11 TRAFFIC DIRECTORATE CAPACITY ALLOCATION Code PO 0-8.5-08 7. DOCUMENTED INFORMATION (RECORDS) Curr Archiving ent Name of record Prepared by Archiving place duration No. Minutes on the Analysis Carried Out Following the Application of the Criteria for Settling the Disputes Commission 1. 5 years related to the Conflicting Requests for Infrastructure CAO Capacity Allocation - the General Case Request for the RUs’ Agreement with the Disclosure 2. CAO CAO 5 years of their Identity Information of the RUs on the Modality to Settle the 3. Conflict between the Conflicting Requests (if the RUs 5 years CAO CAO agree with the disclosure of their identity) Information of the RUs on the Modality to Settle the 4. Conflict between the Conflicting Requests (if the RUs CAO 5 years do not agree with the disclosure of their identity) CAO Minutes on the Analysis Carried Out Following the Application of the Criteria for Settling the Disputes 5. related to the Conflicting Requests for Infrastructure Commission 5 years Capacity Allocation – the Case of the Traffic Sections CAO for Intermodal Terminals Minutes on the Consultation of the RUs on the 6. Settlement of Disputes, Other than Those related to Commission 5 years Conflicting Requests CAO Other Electronic Written Communications between 7. CAO CAO 5 years CFR and the RUs 8. ANNEXES • Annex No. 1 - Minutes on the Analysis Carried Out Following the Application of the Criteria for Settling the Disputes related to the Conflicting Requests for Infrastructure Capacity Allocation - the general case • Annex No. 2 – Information of the RUs on the Modality to Settle the Conflict between the Conflicting Requests (if the RUs agree with the disclosure of their identity) • Annex No. 3 – Information of the RUs on the Modality to Settle the Conflict between the Conflicting Requests (if the RUs do not agree with the disclosure of their identity) • Annex No. 4 - Minutes on the Consultation of the RUs on the Settlement of Disputes • Annex No. 5 - Minutes on the Analysis Carried Out Following the Application of the Criteria for Settling the Disputes related to the Conflicting Requests for Infrastructure Capacity Allocation – the Case of the Traffic Sections for Intermodal Terminals • Annex No. 6 - Process Diagram regarding the Development of the Dispute Settlement Procedure by Using the Criteria – the General Case  CNCF „CFR”- SA QESMS Edition: 2 OPERATIONAL PROCEDURE Revision: 1 SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES OVER THE INFRASTRUCTURE Page: 14/11 TRAFFIC DIRECTORATE CAPACITY ALLOCATION Code PO 0-8.5-08 • Annex No. 7 - Process Diagram regarding the Development of the Dispute Settlement Procedure by Using the Criteria – the Case of the Traffic Sections for Intermodal Terminals • Annex No. 8 - Process Diagram regarding the Development of the Dispute Settlement Procedure without Using the Criteria • Forms - The Checklist of Editions/Reviews; the Procedure Analysis Form; the Dissemination/Withdrawal List.  Annex No. 1, PO 0-8.5-08, Edition 2, Review 1 Traffic Directorate/Traffic Division within the RRB 1-8 Capacity Allocation Office No. ………/Date …… Minutes The Analysis Carried Out Following the Application of the Criteria for Settling the Disputes related to the Conflicting Requests for Infrastructure Capacity Allocation — the General Case Concluded today, ……., following the analysis of the conflicting requests related to infrastructure capacity allocation in the timetable ............. Cur RU Criterion ren 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 t No. 1 2 3 4 Result of the application of the coordination process: Commission: Curr Last name, first name Position Signature ent No. 1 2 3  Annex No. 2, PO 0-8.5-08, Edition 2, Review 1 Traffic Directorate/Traffic Division within the RRB 1-8 Capacity Allocation Office No. ………/Date …… To, (RU).......... Director................ Regarding: Information of the RUs on the Modality to Settle the Conflict between the Conflicting Requests (if the RUs agree with the disclosure of their identity) Following the analysis of your request No. ........... of …….., we send you the results of the coordination process between the conflicting requests related to infrastructure capacity allocation: Cur RU Criterion ren 1 2 3 4 5 7 t No. 1 2 3 4 There was applied Criterion 6 (if applicable) with the following result: (Other comments)........................................................................................  Traffic Director/Head of the Traffic Division (Last name, first name, signature) Head of the CAO (Last name, first name, signature) Prepared by:..... (Last name, first name, signature)  Annex No. 3, PO 0-8.5-08, Edition 2, Review 1 Traffic Directorate/Traffic Division within the RRB 1-8 Capacity Allocation Office No. ………/Date …… To, (RU).......... Director................ Regarding: Information of the RUs on the Modality to Settle the Conflict between the Conflicting Requests (if the RUs do not agree with the disclosure of their identity) Following the analysis of your request No. ........... of …….., we communicate to you the following: ........................................................................................................................................ Traffic Director/Head of the Traffic Division (Last name, first name, signature) Head of the CAO (Last name, first name, signature) Prepared by:..... (Last name, first name, signature)  Annex No. 4, PO 0-8.5-08, Edition 2, Review 1 Traffic Directorate/Traffic Division within the RRB 1-8 Capacity Allocation Office No. ………/Date …… Minutes the Consultation of the RUs on the Settlement of Disputes Concluded today, ……., following the direct consultation with the applicants involved following the disputes related to infrastructure capacity allocation in the timetable .................. A. Opinion of the RU: 1. RU ......... 2. RU ......... 3. RU .......... 4. RU