The Court of Justice of the European Union has jurisdiction to interpret the CUI Uniform Rules on the contract for the use of railway infrastructure in international traffic, which are part of the international COTIF agreement in the field of transport concluded by the European Union and its Member States (mixed agreement), said the Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union, Tamara Ćapeta, in her opinion delivered on Thursday 3 February (Case C-500/20).
In July 2015, two Lokomotion locomotives were damaged in Austria following the derailment of a train consisting of six locomotives. Lokomotion is asking the Austrian railway infrastructure manager, ÖBB-Infrastruktur, to bear the cost of hiring replacement locomotives which it incurred in order to continue its operations, as the CUI Uniform Rules provide that the manager is liable for damage to property caused to the carrier during the use of the infrastructure.
In her submissions, Ms Ćapeta proposes that the Court, on the application of the Austrian Supreme Court, should reply that it has jurisdiction to interpret the CUI Uniform Rules. In her view, by acceding to the agreement, the EU has chosen to exercise shared competences and the relevant provisions of the agreement are therefore part of EU law. Thus, by acceding to COTIF, the EU decided to regulate the liability of the railway network operator by accepting the CUI Uniform Rules, including for situations within the Union.
Therefore, the Court has jurisdiction to interpret these rules, Ms Ćapeta held.
On the question of liability, the Advocate General considers that the strict liability of the infrastructure manager for damage to property under the CUI Uniform Rules does not include the costs of hiring replacement locomotives incurred by the carrier as a result of damage to its locomotives. In her view, these additional costs are the result of Lokomotion’s desire to continue to provide its services without interruption.
Nevertheless, Ms Ćapeta is of the opinion that the CUI rules allow the parties to a contract to extend liability by a general reference to national law, with extended liability being conditional on the existence of fault.
See the conclusions: https://bit.ly/3GjfFmc (Original version in French by Mathieu Bion)