1.

Must Article 56(1), (6) and (9) of Directive 2012/34/EU (1) be interpreted as meaning that a charging scheme is capable of forming the subject matter of a complaint even where the period during which the charge to be reviewed was applicable has already expired (complaint against an ‘old charge’)?

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, must Article 56(1), (6) and (9) of Directive 2012/34/EU be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of an ex-post review of old charges, the regulatory body may declare them to be invalid with ex-tunc effect?

3.

If Questions 1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative, does the interpretation of Article 56(1), (6) and (9) of Directive 2012/34/EU permit national legislation which excludes the possibility of an ex-post review of old charges with ex-tunc effect?

4.

If Questions 1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative, must Article 56(9) of Directive 2012/34/EU be interpreted as meaning that, with regard to legal consequences, the competent regulatory body’s remedial action which is provided for in that provision also includes, in principle, the possibility to order the infrastructure manager to reimburse charges which had been levied unlawfully, even though claims for reimbursement between the railway undertakings and the infrastructure manager can be enforced by way of civil proceedings?

5.

If Questions 1 and 2 are answered in the negative, does a right to complain against old charges arise in any event from the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) in so far as, where the regulatory body has not decided on the complaint, reimbursement of unlawful old charges under the rules of national civil law is precluded in accordance with the case-law of the Court in Case C-489/15 (2) (judgment of 9 November 2017)?