Case C‑489/15
CTL Logistics GmbH
v
DB Netz AG
(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rail transport — Directive 2001/14/EC — Infrastructure charges — Pricing — National regulatory body monitoring the conformity of those infrastructure charges with that directive — Contract for use of infrastructure concluded between a railway infrastructure manager and a railway undertaking — Principle of non-discrimination — Reimbursement of the charges without intervention by that body and outside the claims procedures involving it — National legislation enabling the civil courts to set a fair amount in the case of unfair charges)
Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 9 November 2017
Transport—Rail transport—Directive 2001/14—Allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges—Levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure—Obligations of the Member States—Respect for the independence of the infrastructure manager—Scope
(European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/14, as amended by Directive 2004/49, Recitals 12, 20 and 34)
Transport—Rail transport—Directive 2001/14—Allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges—Levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure—Obligations of the Member States—Scope—Determination of the charge for use of the infrastructure—Precluded—Powers of the infrastructure manager
(European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/14, as amended by Directive 2004/49, Art. 4(1))
Transport—Rail transport—Directive 2001/14—Allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges—Levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure—Obligations of the Member States—Respect for the independence of the infrastructure manager—Scope—National legislation allowing the civil courts to determine, in equity, the charge applicable—Not permissible
(European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/14, t as amended by Directive 2004/49, Recital 12 and Arts 4(5), and 30(1), (3), (5) and (6))
See the text of the decision.
(see paras 38-41)
See the text of the decision.
(see paras 77-79)
The provisions of Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure, as amended by Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004, in particular Article 4(5) and Article 30(1), (3), (5) and (6) of that directive, as amended, must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude the application of national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for a review of the equity of charges for the use of railway infrastructure, on a case-by-case basis, by the ordinary courts and the possibility, if necessary, of amending the amount of those charges, independently of the monitoring carried out by the regulatory body provided for in Article 30 of Directive 2001/14, as amended by Directive 2004/49.
Thus, recital 12 of Directive 2001/14 states that charging and capacity-allocation schemes should encourage railway infrastructure managers to optimise use of their infrastructure within the framework established by the Member States (judgment of 28 February 2013, Commission v Spain, C‑483/10, EU:C:2013:114, paragraph 44). Although it is true that those managers may in principle calculate the amount of the charge, using a charging system applying to all the railway undertakings, they could not achieve such optimal use by means of the charging system if they run the risk, at any time, of a civil court determining, in equity, under Paragraph 315 of the BGB, the charge applicable to a single railway undertaking which is party to the proceedings, the determination of that charge by that court thus restricting the infrastructure manager’s discretion to an extent incompatible with the objectives pursued by Directive 2001/14 (see, to that effect, judgment of 3 October 2013, Commission v Italy, C‑369/11, EU:C:2013:636, paragraph 43).
(see paras 80, 81, 103, operative part)