# C_2020209EN.01000901.xml

| 22.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 3 March 2020 — Koleje Mazowieckie — KM sp. z o.o. v Skarb Państwa — Minister Infrastruktury i Budownictwa, now Minister Infrastruktury, and Prezes Urzędu Transportu Kolejowego, and PKP Polskie Linie Kolejowe S.A.

(Case C-120/20)

(2020/C 209/14)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Koleje Mazowieckie — KM sp. z o.o.

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

Questions referred

| 1. | Are the provisions of Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001, (1) and in particular Article 4(5) and Article 30(1), (3), (5) and (6) thereof, to be interpreted as precluding a railway undertaking from claiming, with no judicial review of the decision of a supervisory body, damages against a Member State on grounds of incorrect implementation of a directive in a situation where an element of the damages is an overpaid charge for the use of railway infrastructure? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are the provisions of Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001, (1) and in particular Article 4(5) and Article 30(1), (3), (5) and (6) thereof, to be interpreted as precluding a railway undertaking from claiming, with no judicial review of the decision of a supervisory body, damages against a Member State on grounds of incorrect implementation of a directive in a situation where an element of the damages is an overpaid charge for the use of railway infrastructure?

| 2. | Does the assumption that a right to damages under Community law for misapplication of EU law, and in particular the incorrect implementation or non-implementation of a directive, exists only where the rule of law infringed is intended to confer rights on individuals, the infringement of the law is qualified in nature (in particular in the form of manifest and grave disregard of a Member State’s discretion in implementing a directive), and the causal link between the infringement and the damage is direct in nature, preclude rules of law of a Member State which, in such cases, confer a right to damages where less stringent conditions are satisfied? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the assumption that a right to damages under Community law for misapplication of EU law, and in particular the incorrect implementation or non-implementation of a directive, exists only where the rule of law infringed is intended to confer rights on individuals, the infringement of the law is qualified in nature (in particular in the form of manifest and grave disregard of a Member State’s discretion in implementing a directive), and the causal link between the infringement and the damage is direct in nature, preclude rules of law of a Member State which, in such cases, confer a right to damages where less stringent conditions are satisfied?

---

(1)  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 (OJ 2001 L 75, p. 29).

---