Case C‑627/10

European Commission

v

Republic of Slovenia

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Transport — Directive 91/440/EEC — Development of the Community’s railways — Directive 2001/14/EC — Allocation of railway infrastructure capacity — Article 6(3) and Annex II to Directive 91/440 — Article 14(2) of Directive 2001/14 — Infrastructure manager — Participation in the preparation of the service timetable — Traffic management — Article 6(2) to (5) of Directive 2001/14 — Failure to provide incentives for infrastructure managers to reduce the costs of provision of infrastructure and the level of access charges — Articles 7(3) and 8(1) of Directive 2001/14 — Cost that is directly incurred as a result of operating the train service — Article 11 of Directive 2001/14 — Performance scheme)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 11 July 2013

1.        Transport — Common policy — Development of the Community’s railways — Separation between the infrastructure and transport activities — Essential functions which must be entrusted to an independent body — Concept — Participation in the preparation of the service timetable — Included — Railway traffic management — Not included

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/14, Art. 14(2)), Council Directive 91/440, Art. 6(3), and Annex II)

2.        Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Examination of the merits by the Court — Situation to be taken into consideration — Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion

(Art. 258, second para., TFEU)

3.        Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Subject-matter of the dispute — Delimitation — Alteration once proceedings have been started — Prohibition

(Rules of Procedure of the Court, Arts. 120(d) and 127(1)

4.        Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Application initiating proceedings — Statement of subject-matter and pleas in law — Formal requirements — Unambiguous wording of the form of order sought by the applicant

(Art. 258 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 120(c))

5.        Transport — Rail transport — Directive 2001/14 — Allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges — Levying of infrastructure charges — Determination of charges on the basis of direct costs — Consideration of the charges imposed for other means of transport — Not permissible

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/14, Art. 7(3))

6.        Transport — Rail transport — Directive 2001/14 — Allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges — Levying of infrastructure charges — Mark-up of charges in order to recover all the costs incurred by the infrastructure manager — Obligation to determine the capacity of market segments to bear mark-upss

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/14, Art. 8(1))

1.        A Member State which provides that the railway infrastructure manager, which itself supplies railway transport services, may participate in the preparation of the service timetable and, therefore, in the allocation of trains paths or infrastructure capacity, fails to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(3) of, and Annex II to, Directive 91/440 on the development of the Community’s railways and Article 14(2) of Directive 2001/14 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure.

Thus, a railway undertaking cannot be entrusted with the defining or assessing of availability for the purpose of adopting decisions on the allocation of train paths or with all the preparatory work for the adoption of decisions concerning the essential functions, such as the preparation of the service timetable.

It is clear from Article 14(2) of Directive 2001/14 that, if the infrastructure manager is not independent of the railway undertakings, the task of allocating infrastructure capacity must be entrusted to an allocating body independent in its legal form, organisation and decision-making from any railway undertakings.

However, since traffic management cannot be regarded as an essential function that must be entrusted to an independent entity, it is clear from Article 6(3) of Directive 91/440 that traffic management may be assigned to an infrastructure manager which is also a railway undertaking.

(see paras 30, 35, 37, 38, 43)

2.        See the text of the decision.

(see paras 32, 33, 56, 57, 64, 65)

3.        See the text of the decision.

(see para. 44)

4.        See the text of the decision.

(see paras 45, 46)

5.        A Member State which provides that the calculation of the charge for access to the infrastructure must take account of the charges for transport infrastructure in other sub-systems, in particular road transport, fails to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(3) of Directive 2001/14 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure. Such a criterion has no direct relationship to the operation of the rail service.

(see paras 66, 68)

6.        Although the Member States are not required, under Article 8(1) of Directive 2001/14 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure to lay down in their national legislation the detailed rules in accordance with which the infrastructure manager must determine the capacity of market segments to bear any increase in costs and the circumstances in which it is required to do so, that provision states, none the less, that in order to obtain full recovery of the costs incurred by the infrastructure manager, it is necessary to verify whether each of the market segments can actually bear mark-ups.

(see paras 70, 71)