|
PARALLEL TEXTS
La Repubblica ceca e la Slovenia sono venute meno agli obblighi loro derivanti dal diritto dell’Unione nel settore del trasporto ferroviario
Inglese tratto da:
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_CJE-13-88_en.htm
Italiano tratto da:
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_CJE-13-88_it.htm
Data documento: 11-07-2013
1 |
The Czech Republic and Slovenia have failed to fulfil their obligations under EU law in the field of rail transport
|
La Repubblica ceca e la Slovenia sono venute meno agli obblighi loro derivanti dal diritto dell’Unione nel settore del trasporto ferroviario
|
2 |
The Court, however, rejects the Commission’s action against Luxembourg
|
La Corte respinge invece il ricorso della Commissione nei confronti del Lussemburgo
|
3 |
These cases form part of a series of actions for failure to fulfil obligations brought by the Commission against several Member States for failure to comply with their obligations under directives governing the functioning of the railway sector.
|
Le presenti cause rientrano in una serie di ricorsi per inadempimento proposti dalla Commissione nei confronti di diversi Stati membri per l'inosservanza degli obblighi loro derivanti dalle direttive che disciplinano il funzionamento del settore ferroviario.
|
4 |
In the present cases the Court of Justice was required to examine the actions brought against the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Luxembourg.
|
Nella specie, la Corte di giustizia deve esaminare i ricorsi proposti contro la Repubblica ceca, la Slovenia e il Lussemburgo.
|
5 |
Case C-545/10 Commission v Czech Republic
|
C-545/10 Commissione / Repubblica ceca
|
6 |
The Court has pointed out, in the first place, that in order to attain the objective of management independence of the infrastructure manager within the charging framework established by the Member States, the manager must be given a certain latitude in determining the amount of the charges so as to enable it to use that flexibility as a management tool.
|
La Corte ricorda in primo luogo che, per garantire l’indipendenza di gestione da parte del gestore dell’infrastruttura, il medesimo deve disporre, nel quadro dell’imposizione dei diritti come definito dagli Stati membri, di un certo grado di flessibilità per la determinazione dell’importo dei diritti in modo da poterne farne uso in quanto strumento di gestione.
|
7 |
However, the setting, by an annual decision of the Ministry of Finance, of a maximum charge for the use of railway infrastructure has the effect of restricting the infrastructure manager’s freedom of action to an extent incompatible with the objectives of Directive 2001/14.
|
Orbene, la determinazione, con decisione annuale del Ministero delle Finanze, di una tariffa massima applicabile all’utilizzo dell’infrastruttura ferroviaria ha l’effetto di restringere il margine di manovra del gestore dell’infrastruttura fino a costituire una misura incompatibile con gli obiettivi della direttiva 2001/14.
|
8 |
In accordance with what is laid down in that directive, the infrastructure manager must be in a position to set or to continue to set higher charges on the basis of the long-term costs of certain investment projects.
|
Conformemente a quest’ultima, il gestore dell’infrastruttura dev’essere infatti in grado di stabilire o mantenere diritti più elevati, sulla base dei costi a lungo termine di taluni progetti di investimento.
|
9 |
The Court concludes from that that the Commission’s first complaint is well founded.
|
La Corte ne conclude che la prima censura della Commissione è fondata.
|
10 |
Secondly, concerning the Commission’s complaint that there are no measures encouraging managers to reduce the costs for the provision of infrastructure and the level of access charges, the Court examined the State funding of the infrastructure manager, relied on by the Czech Republic.
|
Quanto, in secondo luogo, alla censura della Commissione vertente sull'assenza d’incentivi ai gestori dell’infrastruttura per ridurre i costi di fornitura dell'infrastruttura e il livello dei diritti di accesso, la Corte esamina il finanziamento statale del gestore dell’infrastruttura invocato dalla Repubblica ceca.
|
11 |
Although capable of reducing the costs of the provision of infrastructure and the level of access charges, that funding does not in itself have an incentive effect on that manager in that the funding does not entail any commitment on the part of the manager.
|
Se è vero che può comportare la riduzione dei costi di fornitura dell’infrastruttura e del livello dei diritti di accesso, detto finanziamento non ha, di per sé, effetto incentivante nei confronti del gestore, dal momento che tale finanziamento non implica alcun impegno da parte sua.
|
12 |
The Court therefore finds that the second complaint also is well founded.
|
La Corte considera pertanto fondata anche tale seconda censura.
|
13 |
Thirdly, the Court examined the Commission’s complaint that the charges collected for all minimum services and for access to infrastructure services by the network are not equal to the costs directly attributable to the operation of the railway service.
|
In terzo luogo, la Corte esamina la censura della Commissione secondo cui i diritti riscossi per il pacchetto minimo di accesso all’infrastruttura e per l’accesso ai servizi sulla linea non sono pari ai costi direttamente legati alla prestazione del servizio ferroviario.
|
14 |
The Court finds that the Commission has not provided any specific examples showing that access charges have been set by the Czech authorities in disregard of the requirements under the directive.
|
La Corte constata che la Commissione non ha fornito esempi concreti che facciano apparire che i diritti di accesso siano determinati dalle autorità ceche in violazione dei requisiti della direttiva.
|
15 |
Consequently, the Court declares that complaint to be unfounded.
|
Di conseguenza, la Corte dichiara infondata detta censura.
|
16 |
Fourthly, the Commission claims that by failing to establish a performance scheme such as to encourage railway undertakings and the infrastructure manager to minimise disruption and improve the performance of the railway network, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under EU law.
|
In quarto luogo, la Commissione sostiene che, avendo omesso di introdurre un sistema di prestazioni idoneo ad incentivare le imprese ferroviarie e il gestore dell'infrastruttura a ridurre al minimo le perturbazioni e a migliorare le prestazioni della rete ferroviaria, la Repubblica ceca è venuta meno agli obblighi ad essa derivanti dal diritto dell’Unione.
|
17 |
As the Court finds that the legislative and contractual provisions relied on by the Czech Republic cannot be regarded as constituting a coherent and transparent whole which may be described as a ‘performance scheme’, it has declared that complaint to be well founded.
|
Poiché la Corte ritiene che le disposizioni legislative e convenzionali invocate dalla Repubblica ceca non costituiscano un insieme coerente e trasparente che possa essere qualificato come «sistema di prestazioni», essa dichiara fondata detta censura.
|
18 |
Fifthly, the Commission claims that under Czech law decisions of the Office for Railways are to be challenged before the Ministry of Transport.
|
In quinto luogo, la Commissione fa valere che, in virtù del diritto ceco, le decisioni dell’Ufficio delle ferrovie sono impugnabili dinanzi al Ministero dei Trasporti.
|
19 |
However, such a prior administrative appeal is contrary to Directive 2001/14.
|
Orbene, siffatto previo ricorso amministrativo sarebbe contrario alla direttiva 2001/14.
|
20 |
In that regard, the Court has found that it is clear from that directive that the administrative decisions adopted by the regulatory body can be subject only to judicial review, and therefore the Czech legislation infringes EU law.
|
A tal proposito, la Corte constata che da quest’ultima emerge che le decisioni amministrative adottate dall’organismo di regolamentazione possono essere assoggettate soltanto ad un sindacato giurisdizionale e dichiara, di conseguenza, che la normativa ceca viola il diritto dell’Unione.
|
21 |
C-627/10 Commission v Slovenia
|
C-627/10 Commissione / Slovenia
|
22 |
Directive 91/440 provides that, in order to ensure fair and non-discriminatory access to railway infrastructure, the essential functions must be entrusted to bodies or undertakings which are not themselves providers of rail transport services.
|
La direttiva 91/440 prevede che, per garantire un accesso equo e non discriminatorio all'infrastruttura ferroviaria, le “funzioni essenziali” devono essere affidate a enti o società che non prestano a loro volta servizi di trasporto ferroviario.
|
23 |
Those functions include, in particular, the allocation of train paths to railway undertakings, that is to say, the allocation of time slots for train movements over part of the rail network.
|
Tra tali funzioni figura segnatamente l’assegnazione delle linee ferroviarie alle imprese di trasporto ferroviario, vale a dire l’attribuzione di fasce orarie per la circolazione dei treni su una parte della rete ferroviaria.
|
24 |
In that context, the Commission alleges first that Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations in that the Slovenian infrastructure manager, which itself provides rail transport services, participates in the preparation of the service timetable and, therefore, the function of allocating train paths or infrastructure capacity.
|
In proposito, la Commissione addebita alla Slovenia innanzitutto di aver violato gli obblighi ad essa incombenti in quanto il gestore dell’infrastruttura sloveno, che fornisce a sua volta servizi di trasporto ferroviario, avrebbe partecipato alla programmazione dell’orario di servizio e, pertanto, alla funzione di assegnazione delle linee ferroviarie o delle capacità di infrastruttura.
|
25 |
The Court points out that, under Directive 91/440, decision making related to path allocation including the definition and assessment of availability is regarded as coming within the essential functions.
|
La Corte ricorda che, ai termini della direttiva 91/440, l’adozione delle decisioni relative all’assegnazione delle linee ferroviarie, comprese la definizione e la valutazione della disponibilità, è considerata come rientrante nelle funzioni essenziali.
|
26 |
The Court concludes from this that a railway undertaking cannot be entrusted with all the preparatory work for the adoption of such decisions.
|
La Corte ne deduce che ad un’impresa ferroviaria non possono essere interamente affidati i lavori preparatori all’adozione di siffatte decisioni.
|
27 |
This being the case in Slovenia, the Court has declared that the Commission’s complaint is well founded.
|
Considerando che ciò è quanto avviene in Slovenia, la Corte dichiara fondata la censura della Commissione.
|
28 |
By contrast, the Court points out that traffic management cannot be regarded as an essential function, and it may therefore be assigned to an infrastructure manager which is also a railway undertaking, as is the case in Slovenia.
|
La Corte ricorda invece che la gestione del traffico non può essere considerata come una funzione essenziale e che, pertanto, può essere affidata ad un gestore dell’infrastruttura che sia anche un’impresa ferroviaria, come accade in Slovenia.
|
29 |
Next, the Commission claims that Slovenia has not made provision for measures encouraging managers to reduce the costs for the provision of infrastructure and the level of access charges, nor has it implemented the performance scheme for railway undertakings and the infrastructure manager which corresponds to the requirements of EU law.
|
La Commissione fa poi valere che la Slovenia non ha adottato misure per incentivare i gestori dell'infrastruttura a ridurre i costi di fornitura dell'infrastruttura e il livello dei diritti d'accesso, né ha attuato un sistema di prestazioni delle imprese ferroviarie e del gestore dell'infrastruttura che risponda ai requisiti del diritto dell'Unione.
|
30 |
Finally, the Commission made a complaint relating to the calculation of the charge for minimum access to the rail infrastructure.
|
Infine, la Commissione deduce una censura relativa al calcolo dei diritti per il pacchetto minimo di accesso all’infrastruttura ferroviaria.
|
31 |
In that regard, the Court points out that the arguments relied on by Slovenia are based solely on amendments made to its national law after expiry of the period prescribed in the Commission’s reasoned opinion which it sent to Slovenia in 2009.
|
A tal proposito, la Corte rileva che gli argomenti invocati dalla Slovenia si fondano unicamente su modifiche apportate alla sua legislazione nazionale successivamente al termine stabilito nel parere motivato inviatole dalla Commissione nel 2009.
|
32 |
However, those amendments cannot be taken into account by the Court, and consequently it has declared the Commission’s complaints to be well founded.
|
Orbene, dette modifiche non possono essere prese in considerazione dalla Corte e la medesima dichiara pertanto fondate le censure della Commissione.
|
33 |
C-412/11 Commission v Luxembourg
|
C-412/11 Commissione / Lussemburgo
|
34 |
The Commission alleges that Luxembourg failed to fulfil its obligations in that the railway undertaking, Chemins de fer luxembourgeois (CFL), is responsible for certain essential functions relating to the allocation of train paths in the event of traffic disruption.
|
La Commissione contesta al Lussemburgo di aver violato gli obblighi ad esso incombenti in quanto all’impresa ferroviaria CFL (Chemins de fer luxembourgeois, Ferrovie lussemburghesi) continuerebbero ad essere affidate talune funzioni essenziali in materia di assegnazione delle linee ferroviarie in caso di perturbazioni del traffico.
|
35 |
The Court points out that in the event of disruption to the service or danger, the adoption of measures necessary for restoring normal operating conditions, including the withdrawal of train paths, falls within traffic management.
|
Orbene, la Corte ricorda che, in caso di perturbazione del traffico o di pericolo, l’adozione di misure necessarie per ristabilire le condizioni normali della circolazione, compresa la soppressione di linee ferroviarie, rientra nella gestione del traffico.
|
36 |
Since the adoption of measures is not subject to the requirement of independence, an infrastructure manager which is at the same time a railway undertaking may be entrusted with such functions.
|
Poiché quest’ultima non è assoggettata al requisito di indipendenza, ad un gestore dell’infrastruttura che sia anche un’impresa ferroviaria possono essere affidate tali funzioni.
|
37 |
Nevertheless, the Court states that although the withdrawal of train paths in the event of disruption of traffic is not regarded as an essential function, their re-allocation must be regarded as part of the essential functions which may be exercised only by an independent manager or by an allocation body.
|
La Corte precisa tuttavia che, sebbene la soppressione di linee ferroviarie in caso di perturbazione del traffico non sia considerata come funzione essenziale, la riassegnazione delle medesime, dal canto suo, dev’essere considerata come facente parte delle funzioni essenziali che possono essere esercitate soltanto da un gestore indipendente o da un organismo preposto all’assegnazione della capacità.
|
38 |
Bearing in mind that, under Luxembourg legislation, a reallocation of train paths is made by the allocation body, namely, the Administration des Chemins de Fer (ACF), the Court has rejected the Commission’s application.
|
Considerato che secondo la normativa lussemburghese la riassegnazione di linee ferroviarie viene effettuata dall’organismo preposto all’assegnazione della capacità, vale a dire l’Administration des Chemins de Fer (ACF), la Corte respinge il ricorso della Commissione.
|
39 |
NOTE:
|
IMPORTANTE:
|
40 |
An action for failure to fulfil obligations directed against a Member State which has failed to comply with its obligations under European Union law may be brought by the Commission or by another Member State.
|
La Commissione o un altro Stato membro possono proporre un ricorso per inadempimento diretto contro uno Stato membro che è venuto meno ai propri obblighi derivanti dal diritto dell’Unione.
|
41 |
If the Court of Justice finds that there has been a failure to fulfil obligations, the Member State concerned must comply with the Court’s judgment without delay.
|
Qualora la Corte di giustizia accerti l’inadempimento, lo Stato membro interessato deve conformarsi alla sentenza senza indugio.
|
42 |
Where the Commission considers that the Member State has not complied with the judgment, it may bring a further action seeking financial penalties.
|
La Commissione, qualora ritenga che lo Stato membro non si sia conformato alla sentenza, può proporre un altro ricorso chiedendo sanzioni pecuniarie.
|
43 |
However, if measures transposing a directive have not been notified to the Commission, the Court of Justice can, on a proposal from the Commission, impose penalties at the stage of the initial judgment.
|
Tuttavia, in caso di mancata comunicazione delle misure di attuazione di una direttiva alla Commissione, su domanda di quest’ultima, la Corte di giustizia può infliggere sanzioni pecuniarie, al momento della prima sentenza.
|
|
LISTEN WITH READSPEAKER
The Czech Republic and Slovenia have failed to fulfil their obligations
under EU law in the field of rail transport
The Court, however, rejects the Commission’s action against
Luxembourg
These cases form part of a series of actions for failure to fulfil
obligations brought by the Commission against several Member States for failure
to comply with their obligations under directives governing the functioning of
the railway sector.
In the present cases the Court of Justice was required to examine the
actions brought against the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Luxembourg.
Case C-545/10 Commission v Czech Republic
The Court has pointed out, in the first place, that in order to attain
the objective of management independence of the infrastructure manager within
the charging framework established by the Member States, the manager must be
given a certain latitude in determining the amount of the charges so as to
enable it to use that flexibility as a management tool.
However, the setting, by an annual decision of the Ministry of Finance,
of a maximum charge for the use of railway infrastructure has the effect of
restricting the infrastructure manager’s freedom of action to an extent
incompatible with the objectives of Directive 2001/14.
In accordance with what is laid down in that directive, the
infrastructure manager must be in a position to set or to continue to set higher
charges on the basis of the long-term costs of certain investment projects.
The Court concludes from that that the Commission’s first complaint is
well founded.
Secondly, concerning the Commission’s complaint that there are no
measures encouraging managers to reduce the costs for the provision of
infrastructure and the level of access charges, the Court examined the State
funding of the infrastructure manager, relied on by the Czech Republic.
Although capable of reducing the costs of the provision of
infrastructure and the level of access charges, that funding does not in itself
have an incentive effect on that manager in that the funding does not entail any
commitment on the part of the manager.
The Court therefore finds that the second complaint also is well
founded.
Thirdly, the Court examined the Commission’s complaint that the charges
collected for all minimum services and for access to infrastructure services by
the network are not equal to the costs directly attributable to the operation of
the railway service.
The Court finds that the Commission has not provided any specific
examples showing that access charges have been set by the Czech authorities in
disregard of the requirements under the directive.
Consequently, the Court declares that complaint to be unfounded.
Fourthly, the Commission claims that by failing to establish a
performance scheme such as to encourage railway undertakings and the
infrastructure manager to minimise disruption and improve the performance of the
railway network, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
EU law.
As the Court finds that the legislative and contractual provisions
relied on by the Czech Republic cannot be regarded as constituting a coherent
and transparent whole which may be described as a ‘performance scheme’, it has
declared that complaint to be well founded.
Fifthly, the Commission claims that under Czech law decisions of the
Office for Railways are to be challenged before the Ministry of Transport.
However, such a prior administrative appeal is contrary to Directive
2001/14.
In that regard, the Court has found that it is clear from that
directive that the administrative decisions adopted by the regulatory body can
be subject only to judicial review, and therefore the Czech legislation
infringes EU law.
C-627/10 Commission v Slovenia
Directive 91/440 provides that, in order to ensure fair and
non-discriminatory access to railway infrastructure, the essential functions
must be entrusted to bodies or undertakings which are not themselves providers
of rail transport services.
Those functions include, in particular, the allocation of train paths
to railway undertakings, that is to say, the allocation of time slots for train
movements over part of the rail network.
In that context, the Commission alleges first that Slovenia has failed
to fulfil its obligations in that the Slovenian infrastructure manager, which
itself provides rail transport services, participates in the preparation of the
service timetable and, therefore, the function of allocating train paths or
infrastructure capacity.
The Court points out that, under Directive 91/440, decision making
related to path allocation including the definition and assessment of
availability is regarded as coming within the essential functions.
The Court concludes from this that a railway undertaking cannot be
entrusted with all the preparatory work for the adoption of such decisions.
This being the case in Slovenia, the Court has declared that the
Commission’s complaint is well founded.
By contrast, the Court points out that traffic management cannot be
regarded as an essential function, and it may therefore be assigned to an
infrastructure manager which is also a railway undertaking, as is the case in
Slovenia.
Next, the Commission claims that Slovenia has not made provision for
measures encouraging managers to reduce the costs for the provision of
infrastructure and the level of access charges, nor has it implemented the
performance scheme for railway undertakings and the infrastructure manager which
corresponds to the requirements of EU law.
Finally, the Commission made a complaint relating to the calculation of
the charge for minimum access to the rail infrastructure.
In that regard, the Court points out that the arguments relied on by
Slovenia are based solely on amendments made to its national law after expiry of
the period prescribed in the Commission’s reasoned opinion which it sent to
Slovenia in 2009.
However, those amendments cannot be taken into account by the Court,
and consequently it has declared the Commission’s complaints to be well founded.
C-412/11 Commission v Luxembourg
The Commission alleges that Luxembourg failed to fulfil its obligations in that
the railway undertaking, Chemins de fer luxembourgeois (CFL), is responsible for
certain essential functions relating to the allocation of train paths in the
event of traffic disruption.
The Court points out that in the event of disruption to the service or
danger, the adoption of measures necessary for restoring normal operating
conditions, including the withdrawal of train paths, falls within traffic
management.
Since the adoption of measures is not subject to the requirement of
independence, an infrastructure manager which is at the same time a railway
undertaking may be entrusted with such functions.
Nevertheless, the Court states that although the withdrawal of train
paths in the event of disruption of traffic is not regarded as an essential
function, their re-allocation must be regarded as part of the essential
functions which may be exercised only by an independent manager or by an
allocation body.
Bearing in mind that, under Luxembourg legislation, a reallocation of train
paths is made by the allocation body, namely, the Administration des Chemins de
Fer (ACF), the Court has rejected the Commission’s application.
NOTE:
An action for failure to fulfil obligations directed against a Member
State which has failed to comply with its obligations under European Union law
may be brought by the Commission or by another Member State.
If the Court of Justice finds that there has been a failure to fulfil
obligations, the Member State concerned must comply with the Court’s judgment
without delay.
Where the Commission considers that the Member State has not complied
with the judgment, it may bring a further action seeking financial penalties.
However, if measures transposing a directive have not been notified to
the Commission, the Court of Justice can, on a proposal from the Commission,
impose penalties at the stage of the initial judgment. |