Address https://gelex.eu/eli/EU/decision/2014/699@2014-06-24/en

Contents

1. Preamble
2. 1. Article 1
   2. Article 2
   3. Article 3
3. ANNEX
4. ANNEX
5. 3.
6. ITEM 1. OPENING THE MEETING AND ESTABLISHING THE QUORUM
7. ITEM 2. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
8. ITEM 3. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
9. ITEM 4. PARTIAL REVISION OF COTIF — BASIC CONVENTION
10. ITEM 5. PARTIAL REVISION OF APPENDIX B (CIM)
11. ITEM 6. ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS CONCERNING THE CARRIAGE OF DANGEROUS GOODS — INFORMATION ON THE WORK OF THE RID COMMITTEE OF EXPERTS
12. ITEM 7. PARTIAL REVISION OF APPENDIX D (CUV)
13. ITEM 8. REVISION OF APPENDIX G (ATMF)
14. ITEM 9. PARTIAL REVISION OF APPENDIX F (APTU)
15. ITEM 10. MANDATE FOR THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE EXPLANATORY REPORT
16. ITEM 11. EDITORIAL AMENDMENTS
17. —
18. ITEM 12. PARTIAL REVISION OF APPENDIX E (CUI)
19. ITEM 13. RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR THE WORKING GROUPS OF THE REVISION COMMITTEE CONCERNING APPENDICES A, B, D AND E
20. ITEM 14. INFORMATION ON FUTURE WORK

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 91 in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Whereas:

(1) The Union has acceded to the Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail of 9 May 1980 as amended by the Vilnius Protocol of 3 June 1999 (the COTIF Convention) in accordance with Council Decision 2013/103/EU.

(2) All Member States, with the exception of Cyprus and Malta, apply the COTIF Convention.

(3) The Revision Committee set up in accordance with point (c) of Article 13(1) of the COTIF Convention, at its 25th session due to take place from 25 to 27 June 2014, is expected to decide upon certain amendments to the COTIF Convention as well as to certain Appendices thereto, namely Appendices B (Uniform Rules concerning the Contract of International Carriage of Goods by Rail — CIM), D (Uniform Rules concerning Contracts of Use of Vehicles in International Rail Traffic — CUV), E (Uniform Rules concerning the Contract of Use of Infrastructure in International Rail Traffic — CUI), F (Uniform Rules concerning the Validation of Technical Standards and the Adoption of Uniform Technical Prescriptions applicable to Railway Material intended to be used in International Traffic — APTU) and G (Uniform Rules concerning the Technical Admission of Railway Material used in International Traffic — ATMF).

(4) The amendments to the COTIF Convention have the objective of updating the tasks of the Committee of Technical Experts and the definition of keeper in line with Union law; and of modifying certain rules concerning the financing of the Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail (OTIF), its auditing and reporting as well as minor administrative changes.

(5) The amendments to Appendix B (CIM) aim to give preference to the electronic form of the consignment note and its accompanying documents and to clarify certain provisions of the contract of carriage.

(6) The amendments to Appendix D (CUV) presented by the Secretary-General of OTIF have the objective of clarifying the roles of the keeper and the entity in charge of maintenance in the contracts of use of vehicles in international rail traffic. France has presented a separate proposal concerning the liability for damage caused by a vehicle. Germany has also presented a separate proposal concerning the scope of the CUV Uniform rules.

(7) The amendments to Appendix G (ATMF) aim to update the provisions concerning the technical admission of railway material used in international traffic, clarify the functions of and relations between the contracting State as defined in that Appendix, the competent authority and the assessing entity as well as harmonise terms in line with Union law.

(8) The amendments to Appendix F (APTU) aim to maintain consistency with the revised Appendix G (ATMF).

(9) The amendments to Appendix E (CUI) suggested by the Internation Rail Transport Committee (CIT) aim to extend the scope of the uniform rules concerning the contract of use of infrastructure to domestic rail transport, to create a legal basis for general terms and conditions of use of railway infrastructure and to extend the liability of the infrastructure manager for damage or losses caused by the infrastructure.

(10) The Secretary-General of OTIF has also proposed editorial changes to replace the term European Communities by European Union throughout the COTIF Convention and the Appendices thereto.

(11) Most of the proposed amendments are in line with the law and the strategic objectives of the Union, and should therefore be supported by the Union. Certain amendments have no impact on EU law and do not need a position to be agreed at Union level. Finally, some amendments need more discussion within the Union and should be rejected at this meeting of the Revision Committee; should the latter amendments be approved without modification that is acceptable for the Union, the Union should formulate an objection following the procedure established in Article 35(4) of the COTIF Convention,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

1. The position to be taken on the Union's behalf at the 25th session of the Revision Committee set up by the Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail shall be in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.

2. Minor changes to the documents mentioned in the Annex to this Decision may be agreed by the representatives of the Union in the Revision Committee without further Decision of the Council.

Article 2

After its adoption, the Decision of the Revision Committee shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

Done at Luxembourg, 24 June 2014. For the Council The President E. Venizelos

ANNEX

ANNEX

1. INTRODUCTION The Secretary-General of OTIF has convened the 25th session of the Revision Committee (RC) of COTIF Convention in Berne on 25-27 June 2014.

2. REFERENCED DOCUMENTS Documents concerning the agenda items were circulated to OTIF Member States and are available on the website of OTIF at the following link: http://otif.org/en/law/revision-committee/working-documents.html

3. COMMENTS ON EACH AGENDA ITEM

3.

ITEM 1. OPENING THE MEETING AND ESTABLISHING THE QUORUM

Document: none. Competence: shared. Exercising voting rights: not applicable. Recommended coordinated position: none. There is a quorum in the RC when the majority of the OTIF Member States enjoying the right to vote are represented there at the time of the vote. However, Article 13(3) of the COTIF Convention provides that OTIF Member States having made a declaration concerning the non-application of one or more Appendices do not have the right to vote concerning amendments to the given Appendix. The following OTIF Member States have not withdrawn their declarations on the non-application of certain Appendices:

Pakistan, Russia (concerning Uniform Rules concerning the Contract of International Carriage of Passengers by Rail (CIV), the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Rail (RID), CUV, CUI, APTU and ATMF), Georgia (concerning CUV, CUI, APTU and ATMF), the Czech Republic, Norway, Slovakia, the United Kingdom (concerning CUI, APTU and ATMF), France (concerning ATMF).

When discussing amendments to the relevant Appendices, the number of OTIF Member States having made a declaration on the non-application of the Appendix in question has to be deducted from the number of active members of OTIF (46) to establish the quorum concerning the vote on the Appendix in question.

In the case of Union competence, the Union may vote for all of its members having the right to vote, without regard to the physical presence of those members at the vote; thus, the quorum may be different in the case of the Union representing its Member States and in the case of Union Member States voting for themselves.

ITEM 2. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR

Document: none. Competence: shared. Exercising voting rights: Member States. Recommended coordinated position: none.

ITEM 3. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

Document: CR 25/3. Competence: shared. Exercising voting rights: Member States. Recommended coordinated position: none.

ITEM 4. PARTIAL REVISION OF COTIF — BASIC CONVENTION

Documents: CR 25/4, CR 25/4 Add. 1. Competence: shared. Exercising voting rights: Member States. Recommended coordinated position: Amendments to Article 3 (International cooperation) to be supported (editorial change to replace the reference to the European Communities with a reference to the European Union). Amendments to Article 12 (Execution of judgments. Attachment) to be supported as it amends the definition of keeper in line with Union law. Amendments to Article 20 (Committee of Technical Experts) to be supported as they are necessary to update the APTU Uniform Rules and ATMF Uniform Rules in order to keep them in line with Union law. Other amendments: no Union position necessary as these amendments relate to the financing of the organisation, auditing or include administrative changes regarding the work programme, the annual report and the lists of lines or services which have no impact on Union law.

ITEM 5. PARTIAL REVISION OF APPENDIX B (CIM)

Documents: CR 25/5, CR 25/5 Add. 1, CR 25/5 Add. 2, CR 25/5.1. Competence: shared. Exercising voting rights: Union for Articles 6 and 6a; Member States for other Articles. Recommended coordinated position: Amendments to Article 6 and new Article 6a concern Union law because of the use of the consignment note and its accompanying documents for customs and sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) procedures. The Union agrees with the intention of OTIF to give priority to the electronic form of consignment notes. However, at present the adoption of these amendments may lead to unintended consequences. The current simplified procedure for customs transit by rail is only possible with paper documents. Therefore, if railways opt for the electronic consignment note, they will have to use the standard transit procedure and the New Computerised Transit System (NCTS). The Commission has started preparations for a working group to discuss the use of electronic transport documents for transit under Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and the Council. That working group will have its kick-off meeting on 4-5 June 2014. The Union agrees also with the intention to provide the accompanying documents in electronic format. However, under current Union law there is no legal basis to provide the documents (e.g. Common Veterinary Entry Document, Common Entry Document) which have to accompany SPS-related goods in electronic format and therefore they need to be provided on paper. The Commission has prepared a draft Regulation, which will cater for electronic certification and the draft is currently under discussion in the European Parliament and the Council. That Regulation (Official Control Regulation) is envisaged to be adopted by end of 2015/beginning of 2016, however, there will be a transitional period for the enforcement. Therefore, the Union suggests that no decision should be taken on these items at the present session of the RC and that OTIF continue cooperation with the Union on this issue in order to have a well-prepared solution for an upcoming revision of CIM which should ideally be synchronised with the Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 and its implementing provisions which are to be in force from 1 May 2016. Certain electronic procedures may be phased in between 2016 and 2020 in accordance with Article 278 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013. Other amendments: no Union position necessary as these provisions do not interfere with Union law.

ITEM 6. ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS CONCERNING THE CARRIAGE OF DANGEROUS GOODS — INFORMATION ON THE WORK OF THE RID COMMITTEE OF EXPERTS

Document: CR 25/6. Competence: Union. Exercising voting rights: not applicable. Recommended coordinated position: to take note of the information.

ITEM 7. PARTIAL REVISION OF APPENDIX D (CUV)

Documents: CR 25/7, CR 25/7 Add. 1, CR 25/7 Add. 2, CR 25/7 Add. 3. Competence: shared. Exercising voting rights: Union. Recommended Union position: Amendments to Articles 2 and 9 to be supported as they clarify the roles of the keeper and of the entity in charge of maintenance in line with Union law (Directive 2008/110/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council).However, the proposed amendment to Article 7 submitted by France concerning the liability of the person who has provided a vehicle for use as a means of transport in case of damage resulting from a defect of the vehicle needs further analysis within the Union before taking a decision in OTIF. Therefore, the Union is not in a position to support this amendment proposal at this RC and proposes to postpone the decision until the next General Assemblyin order to further assess this issue. The Union takes the same position, i.e. to postpone the decision until the next General Assembly in order to further assess the issue, on the proposal of Germany for a new Article 1a presented to OTIF during Union coordination. Additional recommended Union position: In document CR 25/7 ADD 1, page 6, at the end of paragraph 8a, add: The amendment to Article 9, paragraph 3, first indent, does not affect the existing allocation of liabilities between ECM and the keeper of the vehicles..

ITEM 8. REVISION OF APPENDIX G (ATMF)

Documents: CR 25/8, CR 25/8 Add. 1, CR 25/8 Add. 2. Competence: Union. Exercising voting rights: Union. Recommended coordinated position:

(1) On Ref. CR 25/8 Revision of Appendix G (ATMF) To vote in favour with the following comments:

add the following sentence to Article 3a(3): When operating in the EU, railway undertakings and infrastructure managers shall only be subject to European legislation. The Union could accept the following alternatives: For railway undertakings and infrastructure managers, when operating within the EU, EU legislation takes precedence over the provisions in these Uniform Rules. ; or When operating within the European Union, railway undertakings and infrastructure managers are solely subject to European Union rules and shall therefore not apply these Uniform Rules except in so far as there is no EU rule governing the particular subject concerned. ,

Article 4(1): add the following sentence at the end (after point (b)): If the vehicle is admitted in a single stage, the type of construction of the vehicle is admitted at the same time. ,

Article 5(5): Correct the reference; replace Article 2w1) with Article 2wa(1),

Article 19: Combine Article 19(2) and (2a) by deleting (2a) and replacing (2) by the following modified text: These Uniform Rules do not affect admissions issued before 1.1.2011 for vehicles which exist as at 1.1.2011 and which are marked RIV or RIC as proof of current compliance with the technical provisions of the RIV 2000 agreement (revised edition of 1 January 2004) or the RIC agreement respectively, and for existing vehicles not marked RIV or RIC but admitted and marked according to bilateral or multilateral agreements between Contracting States notified to the Organisation. .

(2) On 25/8 Add. 1. Justification document for the Revision of Appendix G (ATMF)

General justifications (end of page 2): modify the sentence as follows: The changes which are not covered by these general justifications are explained in the rest of this document.,

point (t) of Article 2: add a new paragraph When infrastructure managers operate vehicles, e.g. freight wagons to transport materials for construction or for infrastructure maintenance activities, the infrastructure managers do so in the capacity of a railway undertaking.,

point (b) of Article 4(1): Add module SH1 since the design type certificate issued in the design phase of this module also provides the possibility to use the procedure described. The new sentence would read: According to Article 10 § 8, the appropriate manner to demonstrate that the vehicle corresponds to the admitted type of construction is a certificate of verification, it is not really a simplified procedure. The certificate of verification is issued according to the appropriate module defined in the UTP(s) concerned which may be module SD or module SF for type examination certificate or module SH1 for design examination certificate. ,

Article 7(1a): to align the interpretation of this provision with that of the Union (Article 8(7) of Commission Recommendation 2011/217/EU), add the following sentence: Due to the fact that the admission procedures can take several months, it is recommended that the rules to be applied by the competent authority for a specific admission process are those that were in force at the date of the application and that no new rule is imposed during the subsequent process. .

(3) Result of the verification of the German version of the Revision of Annex G (ATMF):

Point (ab) of Article 2 Align the definition of accreditation with the wording of Article 2(10) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council Akkreditierung: die Bestätigung durch eine nationale Akkreditierungsstelle, dass eine Konformitätsbewertungsstelle die in europäischen harmonisierten Normen oder anwendbaren internationalen Normen festgelegten Anforderungen und, gegebenenfalls, zusätzliche Anforderungen, einschließlich solcher in relevanten sektoralen Akkreditierungssystemen, erfüllt, um eine spezielle Konformitätsbewertungstätigkeit durchzuführen. ,

Article 5(2): assessing entities is translated as Bewertungsstelle. According to the ETV GEN-E the assessing entity is translated as Prüforgan. In the Union the term Bewertungsstelle is especially assigned to assessment bodies according to the common safety method for risk assessment (CSM RA). Therefore, the OTIF term according to Article 5(2) could be misleading. The proposal is to use the word Prüforgan in ATMF. See also point (cb) of Article 2, Article 5(3)-(7), Article 6(4), Article 10(3a), (4), (6)-(8),

Article 5(4): change the wording Die Anforderungen in § 3 gelten sinngemäß für die zuständige Behörde, in Bezug auf die in § 2 genannten Aufgaben, die nicht an eine Bewertungsstelle übertragen wurden.,

Article 10(8): delete the brackets,

Article 5(3): after the wording Voraussetzungen, replace erfüllen by erfüllt,

point (b) of Article 11(3): the word Identifizierungscode(se) should be replaced by Identifizierungscode(s),

second sentence of Article 15(1): delete nicht,

second sentence of Article 15a(1): put a full stop after entsprechen and start a third sentence with Es hat insbesondere:.

(4) In the French version the definition in point (n) of Article 2 should read: détenteur désigne la personne ou l'entité propriétaire du véhicule ou disposant d'un droit de disposition sur celui-ci, qui exploite ledit véhicule à titre de moyen de transport et est inscrite en tant que telle dans le registre des véhicules prévu à l'article 13. .

ITEM 9. PARTIAL REVISION OF APPENDIX F (APTU)

Documents: Ref.: CR 25/9, CR 25/9 Add. 1. Competence: Union. Exercising voting rights: Union. Recommended coordinated position: editorial amendments to be supported.

ITEM 10. MANDATE FOR THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE EXPLANATORY REPORT

Document: CR 25/10. Competence: shared. Exercising voting rights: Member States. Recommended Union position: to be supported.

ITEM 11. EDITORIAL AMENDMENTS

Document: CR 25/11. Competence: shared. Exercising voting rights: Member States. Recommended coordinated position: to be supported with the addition of the following new second indent: .

—

to provide for a period of 3 weeks open for Member States for a check of those editorial amendments before their notification:

ITEM 12. PARTIAL REVISION OF APPENDIX E (CUI)

Document: CR 25/12. Competence: shared. Exercising voting rights: Union. Recommended coordinated position: amendments to be rejected. These amendments suggested by CIT include the extension of the scope of CUI to domestic operations, the introduction of contractually binding General Terms and Conditions and the extension of the infrastructure manager's liability for damage. They may deserve further consideration but as they have not been discussed in any internal forum of OTIF before the Revision Committee, their impact could not have been assessed in sufficient detail. It seems to be premature to amend CUI (which is at present in line with Union law) at this RC without proper preparation.

ITEM 13. RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR THE WORKING GROUPS OF THE REVISION COMMITTEE CONCERNING APPENDICES A, B, D AND E

Document: CR 25/13. Competence: shared. Exercising voting rights: Member States. Recommended coordinated position: none.

ITEM 14. INFORMATION ON FUTURE WORK

Document: CR 25/14 (not available yet). Competence: shared. Exercising voting rights: not applicable. Recommended coordinated position: to be determined on the spot.

Versions

1. 2014-06-24

Cited by

• Action brought on 29 November 2016 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany (Case C-620/16) Notice · Grade B

  declare that the Federal Republic of Germany infringed Council Decision 2014/699/EU and Article 4(3) TEU, in so far as, at the 25th meeting of the OTIF Revision Committee, it voted against the common position laid down in that decision and expressed open opposition both to that common position and to the exercise of voting rights by the EU provided for therein.

• Action brought on 29 November 2016 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany (Case C-620/16) Notice · Grade B

  In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law: The Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail (OTIF), of which the EU alongside 26 Member States is a member, administers the Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail (COTIF). At the 25th meeting of the OTIF Revision Committee a vote was held with respect to certain changes to the convention and its annexes. The Council laid down the EU common position with regard to several of those points in Decision 2014/699/EU. At the meeting, the Federal Republic of Germany voted in two points

• Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) 27 March 2019 Judgment · Grade B

  By its application, the European Commission is asking the Court to declare that the Federal Republic of Germany, by having, at the 25th session of the Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail (OTIF) Revision Committee, voted against the position laid down in Council Decision 2014/699/EU of 24 June 2014 establishing the position to be adopted on behalf of the European Union at the 25th session of the OTIF Revision Committee as regards certain amendments to the Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail (COTIF) and the Appendices thereto (OJ 2014 L 293, p. 26),

• Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) 27 March 2019 Judgment · Grade B

  Section 3 of the Annex to Decision 2014/699 sets out, with respect to the various items on the agenda at the 25th session of the OTIF Revision Committee, the divisions of competence between the European Union and its Member States, the exercise of voting rights and the recommended coordinated position.

• Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) 27 March 2019 Judgment · Grade B

  As regards items 4 and 7 on the agenda at the 25th session of the OTIF Revision Committee, which concern the proposed amendments to Article 12 of the COTIF and Articles 2 and 9 of Appendix D (CUV) to the COTIF, on the Uniform Rules concerning Contracts of Use of Vehicles in International Rail Traffic (CUV) (the amendments at issue), Section 3 of the Annex to Decision 2014/699 provides: Item 4. Partial Revision of COTIF — Basic Convention … Competence: shared. Exercising voting rights: Member States. Recommended coordinated position: … Amendments to Article 12 (Execution of judgments. Attachmen

• Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) 27 March 2019 Judgment · Grade B

  Decision 2014/699

• Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) 27 March 2019 Judgment · Grade B

  On 29 May 2015 the Commission opened an infringement procedure pursuant to Article 258(1) TFEU by addressing a letter of formal notice to the Federal Republic of Germany, in which it claimed that that Member State, by its conduct at the 25th session of the OTIF Revision Committee, had failed to fulfil its obligations under Decision 2014/699 and Article 4(3) TEU. The Commission further noted that it could be inferred, based on the fact that the Federal Republic of Germany expressly considered, according to its own statements, that its conduct was legitimate, that this Member State would be like

• Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) 27 March 2019 Judgment · Grade B

  On 22 December 2014 the Federal Republic of Germany brought proceedings before the Court of Justice, seeking the partial annulment of Decision 2014/699, in so far as it related in particular to the amendments at issue. Its pleas related to alleged infringements of (i) the principle of conferral of powers laid down in Article 5(2) TEU, owing to a lack of competence of the European Union, (ii) the obligation to state reasons laid down in Article 296 TFEU, and, (iii) the principle of sincere cooperation, laid down in Article 4(3) TEU, read in conjunction with the principle of effective judicial p

• Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) 27 March 2019 Judgment · Grade B

  That Member State argues that its exercise of the right to vote did not have any bearing on the outcome of the decisions taken at the 25th session of the OTIF Revision Committee, as the Commission concedes; nor did that damage the reputation, credibility or unitary representation of the European Union among members of the international community. The Federal Republic of Germany claims that, in any event, the European Union structured the procedure for adopting Decision 2014/699 in such a way as to prevent that Member State from obtaining judicial protection in respect of that decision, thus co

• Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) 27 March 2019 Judgment · Grade B

  Moreover, the Federal Republic of Germany criticises the Commission for allowing doubts to remain as to the exact scope of its application, contrary to the requirements relating to the sufficiently clear wording of an application. The Federal Republic of Germany argues that the Commission made clear for the first time in its reply that it was criticising that Member State for infringement of Decision 2014/699 only in so far as concerns items 4 and 7 of the agenda for the 25th session of the OTIF Revision Committee.

• Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) 27 March 2019 Judgment · Grade B

  In that connection, it must be noted that the Commission criticises the Federal Republic of Germany for its conduct at the 25th session of the OTIF Revision Committee, namely that Member State’s vote within that committee, and the point of view which it expressed in breach of (i) Decision 2014/699 and (ii) Article 4(3) TEU.

• Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) 27 March 2019 Judgment · Grade B

  The infringement thus complained of consists in the alleged failure to observe a position adopted by the European Union, as it is set out in a Council decision adopted under Article 218(9) TFEU, which provides for a simplified procedure for the purposes of defining positions to be adopted on behalf of the European Union in the context of its participation in the adoption, within a decision-making body set up by the international agreement in question, of acts applying or implementing that agreement (judgment of 6 October 2015, Council v Commission, C‑73/14, EU:C:2015:663, paragraph 65). The co

• Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) 27 March 2019 Judgment · Grade B

  The Federal Republic of Germany, after taking part in the deliberations and voting within the Council concerning a decision taking a position on behalf of the European Union, such as Decision 2014/699, would be able to eschew that decision following its adoption, while being confident that the Commission would be unable to bring proceedings before the Court under Article 258 TFEU against such a failure to fulfil its obligations.

• Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) 27 March 2019 Judgment · Grade B

  As to the claim relied upon by the Federal Republic of Germany that the European Union structured the procedure for adopting Decision 2014/699 in such a way as to prevent that Member State from obtaining judicial protection with regard to that decision, such a submission comes within the scope of the substantive examination of the present action and not that of the admissibility of that action.

• Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) 27 March 2019 Judgment · Grade B

  In that connection, it is clear from paragraphs 15 to 19 of the application that the Commission criticises that Member State for failure to fulfil obligations under Decision 2014/699 and Article 4(3) TEU, solely in so far as concerns items 4 and 7 of the agenda for the 25th session of the OTIF Revision Committee. In its application, the Commission in fact refers to the Annex to Decision 2014/699 only in so far as that annex relates to amendments to the COTIF specified in items 4 and 7 of the agenda for that session, and referred to those two agenda items in its summary of the facts, which have

• Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) 27 March 2019 Judgment · Grade B

  By its first submission, the Commission criticises the Federal Republic of Germany for having infringed Decision 2014/699, by voting, at the 25th session of the OTIF Revision Committee, against the position defined by the European Union in that decision with regard to items 4 and 7 on the agenda for that session, and by publicly challenging the exercise of the right to vote by the European Union.

• Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) 27 March 2019 Judgment · Grade B

  The Commission points out that, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 288 TFEU, Decision 2014/699 is binding in its entirety, both on the institutions of the European Union and on the Member States. The Commission adds that the fact that the Federal Republic of Germany voted against that decision in the Council and brought an action for annulment of the same decision before the Court does not affect the binding nature of the decision and the obligations resulting therefrom for the Member States.

• Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) 27 March 2019 Judgment · Grade B

  It is apparent from the Court’s case-law that Member States cannot unilaterally take corrective or protective measures intended to cure any infringement of EU law by the institution which adopted the disputed act. On that basis, for as long as the Court has not annulled Decision 2014/699 or suspended its execution, the Federal Republic of Germany has to respect it. Otherwise, the consistent and uniform application of EU law, which is a fundamental feature of the EU system, would be undermined.

• Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) 27 March 2019 Judgment · Grade B

  As regards the objection of unlawfulness raised by the Federal Republic of Germany against Decision 2014/699, the Commission recalls that, according to the Court’s case-law, Member States cannot rely on the unlawfulness of an act in infringement proceedings relating to failure to implement that act. That case-law applies, it is argued, in respect of all acts of general application, irrespective of whether or not such acts were addressed to the Member State concerned.

• Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) 27 March 2019 Judgment · Grade B

  As regards the Commission’s first submission, the Federal Republic of Germany does not dispute the fact that it failed to comply with Decision 2014/699, in so far as the latter relates to the amendments in question. However, it takes the view that the relevant provisions of that decision cannot be invoked against it, since they are unlawful, for the reasons already set out in the case giving rise to the judgment of 5 December 2017, Germany v Council (C‑600/14, EU:C:2017:935).