# C_2021338EN.01000601.xml

| 23.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 338/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Koleje Mazowieckie — KM Sp. z o.o. v Skarb Państwa — Minister Infrastruktury i Budownictwa obecnie Minister Infrastruktury i Prezes Urzędu Transportu Kolejowego, PKP Polskie Linie Kolejowe S.A.

(Case C-120/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Rail transport - Allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure - Directive 2001/14/EC - Article 4(5) - Charging - Article 30 - National regulatory body tasked with ensuring that infrastructure charges comply with that directive - Contract for use of infrastructure concluded between the infrastructure manager and a railway undertaking - Incorrect implementation - State liability - Claim for damages - Prior referral to the national regulatory body)

(2021/C 338/07)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Koleje Mazowieckie — KM Sp. z o.o.

Defendants: Skarb Państwa — Minister Infrastruktury i Budownictwa obecnie Minister Infrastruktury i Prezes Urzędu Transportu Kolejowego, PKP Polskie Linie Kolejowe S.A.

intervener: Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich (RPO)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | 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 and safety certification, as amended by Directive 2007/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007, in particular Article 4(5) and Article 30 thereof, must be interpreted as precluding an ordinary court of a Member State ruling on an action for damages against the State brought by a railway undertaking on the basis of an incorrect implementation of that directive, resulting in an alleged overpayment of a charge to the infrastructure manager, where the regulatory body and, as the case may be, the court having jurisdiction to hear appeals against the decisions of that body have not yet ruled on the legality of that charge.
  Article 30(2), (5) and (6) of Directive 2001/14, as amended by Directive 2007/58, must be interpreted as requiring that a railway undertaking holding an access permit has the right to challenge the amount of individual charges set by the infrastructure manager before the regulatory body, that that body take a decision on that challenge and that that decision may be reviewed by the court having jurisdiction to conduct such review. |
| --- | --- |

1.

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 and safety certification, as amended by Directive 2007/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007, in particular Article 4(5) and Article 30 thereof, must be interpreted as precluding an ordinary court of a Member State ruling on an action for damages against the State brought by a railway undertaking on the basis of an incorrect implementation of that directive, resulting in an alleged overpayment of a charge to the infrastructure manager, where the regulatory body and, as the case may be, the court having jurisdiction to hear appeals against the decisions of that body have not yet ruled on the legality of that charge.

Article 30(2), (5) and (6) of Directive 2001/14, as amended by Directive 2007/58, must be interpreted as requiring that a railway undertaking holding an access permit has the right to challenge the amount of individual charges set by the infrastructure manager before the regulatory body, that that body take a decision on that challenge and that that decision may be reviewed by the court having jurisdiction to conduct such review.

| 2. | EU law must be interpreted not precluding national civil liability law from making the rights of individuals to obtain compensation for damage suffered as a result of an infringement of EU law by a Member State subject to less stringent conditions than those laid down by EU law. |
| --- | --- |

2.

EU law must be interpreted not precluding national civil liability law from making the rights of individuals to obtain compensation for damage suffered as a result of an infringement of EU law by a Member State subject to less stringent conditions than those laid down by EU law.

---

(1)  OJ C 209, 22.6.2020.

---