Brussels, 12/07/2013 (Agence Europe) - As part of series of actions brought by the European Commission against various countries for the non-respect of directives on the functioning of the rail market (91/440/ECC and 2001/14/EU), the Court of Justice of the EU ruled against the Czech Republic and Slovenia but rejected the action against Luxembourg.
Czech Republic (case C-545/10). The Court upheld the Commission's claims according to which: - the setting, by an annual decision of the Czech Ministry of Finance, of a maximum charge for the use of railway infrastructure has the effect of restricting the objectives of Directive 2001/14 (capacity allocation for railway infrastructure). This restricts the freedom of action the infrastructure manager must have on setting or to continuing to set higher charges on the basis of the long-term costs of certain investment projects; - state financing of the infrastructure manager does not encourage the latter to reduce the costs of infrastructure supply and the level of access charges. Indeed, this financing does not involve any commitment on its part; - the lack of a performance improvement scheme likely to incentivise railway companies and the network manager to reduce the weaknesses to a minimum. According to the Court, the measures used by the Czech Republic cannot be described as a “performance scheme”; - the decisions of the Office for Railways must be the subject of a prior appeal before the Ministry of Transport. This procedure is contrary to Directive 2001/14, as the decisions of this control body cannot be subject to jurisdictional control, the Court confirms. By contrast, the Court considers the grievance unfounded according to which the charges collected for the whole of the minimum services and access to the infrastructure are not equal to the costs directly attributable for the use of the railway service, the Commission not having provided concrete examples in this regard.
Slovenia (case C-627/10). The Court upholds that Slovenia did not comply with Directive 91/440 (development of the Community's railways), by making the infrastructure manager, which itself provides rail transport services, participate in the preparation of service timetables and, therefore, the function of allocating train paths. Indeed, the directive specifies that an “essential function”, such the allocation of train paths, cannot be attributed to an entity that itself supplies transport services. The Court also declares as well founded the grievances relating to the absence of incentives to reduce the costs of the supply of infrastructure and access charges and to improve the performance of railway companies and the infrastructure manager, as well as calculation of the minimum access charge to the infrastructure. The amendments made by Slovenia to its legislation were introduced after the deadline set by the Commission (2009).
Luxembourg (case C-627/10). The Court rejects the Commission's application against Luxembourg for having kept the national railway company (Chemins de fer luxembourgeois - CFL) in charge of allocating train paths in the event of traffic disruption. According to the Court, the withdrawal of train paths in the event of disruption relates to traffic management, a function which is not considered as “essential” in the sense of the directive (see above) and which does not necessarily require the independence of the authority that is responsible. Furthermore, in Luxembourg's regulation, the reallocation of train paths is entrusted to the allocation body (l'Administration des chemins de fer - ACF). (FG/transl.fl)