1.

Are the provisions of European law, in particular Article 30(1) (first sentence), (2), (3), (5) (first subparagraph), and (6) of Directive 2001/14/EC, (1) to be interpreted as precluding claims for repayment of charges for the use of railway infrastructure agreed or specified in a framework contract between an infrastructure manager and an applicant in so far as such claims are not made in the proceedings envisaged as taking place before the national regulatory body and the corresponding judicial proceedings in which decisions of that regulatory body are reviewed?

2.

Are the provisions of European law, in particular Article 30(1) (first sentence), (2), (3), (5) (first subparagraph), and (6) of Directive 2001/14/EC, to be interpreted as precluding claims for repayment of charges for the use of railway infrastructure agreed or specified in a framework contract between an infrastructure manager and an applicant if the disputed charges have not previously been submitted to the national regulatory body for review?

3.

Is it compatible with the requirements of EU law, which requires an infrastructure manager to comply with general requirements for setting charges, such as covering costs (Article 6(1) of Directive 2001/14/EC) or taking into account market sustainability criteria (Article 8(1) of Directive 2001/14/EC), for there to be a review in the civil courts of the equitable nature of charges for the use of railway infrastructure on the basis of a national civil law provision which permits the courts to review the fairness of performance unilaterally specified by one of the parties and, where appropriate, to specify performance themselves in the exercise of their own discretion?

4.

If question 3 is answered in the affirmative: in exercising its discretion, must the civil court apply the criteria in Directive 2001/14/EC as regards the setting of charges for the use of railway infrastructure, and, if so, which ones?

5.

Is the assessment by the civil courts of the fairness of charges on the basis of the national provision referred to in question 3 compatible with European law in so far as the civil courts set charges which depart from the general charging principles and the amounts of the charges of a railway manager, notwithstanding the fact that that railway manager is obliged by EU law to treat all persons entitled to access equally and in a non-discriminatory manner (Article 4(5) of Directive 2001/14/EC)?

6.

Is the review by the civil courts of the equitable nature of charges imposed by an infrastructure manager compatible with EU law taking into account the fact that EU law assumes that it is the regulatory body that is competent to determine differences of opinion between an infrastructure manager and a person entitled to access as regards charges for the use of railway infrastructure, or the amount or structure of such charges, which the person entitled to access is or would be obliged to pay (third subparagraph of Article 30(5) of Directive 2001/14/EC), and the fact that the potentially large number of disputes before different civil courts means that the regulatory body would not be able to ensure the uniform application of railway regulatory law (Article 30(3) of Directive 2001/14/EC)?

7.

Is it compatible with EU law, in particular Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/14/EC, for national provisions to require that all charges for the use of railway infrastructure imposed by infrastructure managers be calculated solely on the basis of direct costs?