Case C‑555/10

European Commission

v

Republic of Austria

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Transport — Development of the Community’s railways — Directive 91/440/EEC — Article 6(3) and Annex II — Directive 2001/14/EC — Articles 4(2) and 14(2) — Infrastructure manager — Organisational and decision-making independence — Holding company structure — Incomplete transposition)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 28 February 2013

1.        Transport — Common policy — Development of the Community’s railways — National railway infrastructure manager — Independence — Assessment criteria set out in a Commission working document — Binding legal value — No such value — Obligation to transpose — No such obligation

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/14; Council Directive 91/440)

2.        Action for failure to fulfil obligations — Proof of failure — Burden of proof on Commission — Production of evidence showing failure — Presumptions — Inadmissibility

(Art. 258 TFEU)

1.        A Commission working document which sets out the criteria on the basis of which it examines the independence of the national rail infrastructure manager, as required by Directive 2001/14 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure, and the measures envisaged to guarantee that independence, which has never been published in the Official Journal of the European Union, which was made public three years after the expiry of the period prescribed for the transposition of that directive and which was not referred to in any legislative measure has no binding legal value.

2.        Therefore a Member State cannot be criticised for failing to include those criteria in the laws or regulations transposing Directive 91/440 on the development of the Community’s railways and Directive 2001/14. Accordingly, the failure to transpose those criteria cannot, of itself, lead to the conclusion that the national railway infrastructure manager has independent decision-making powers vis-à-vis the undertaking in which it is integrated, which, as holding company, also supervises rail undertakings.

(see paras 32, 54, 58, 61)

3.        See the text of the decision.

(see para. 62)