Infrastructure Managers vs Railway Undertakings – Allocation of Responsibility in EU Rail Operations

Rail transport in the European Union depends on close cooperation between infrastructure managers and railway undertakings. Infrastructure managers operate and maintain the railway network, while railway undertakings run trains and provide passenger or freight services. This separation between infrastructure management and transport operations is one of the key principles of EU railway law established by Directive 2012/34/EU
establishing a Single European Railway Area.

In daily rail operations many situations can lead to questions about responsibility. Trains may be delayed because of signal failures, track maintenance, or power supply issues. Rolling stock may damage infrastructure. Access to busy lines may be limited and operators may compete for train paths. Each of these situations may create disputes about who caused the problem and who should bear the financial consequences.

The basic rules for access to railway infrastructure in the EU are set out in Directive 2012/34/EU. The directive created a common framework for railway markets across the EU and requires Member States to provide fair and non-discriminatory access to the railway network. Railway undertakings that have the required licence and safety certificate must be able to operate services on the network, while infrastructure managers must provide access under clear and transparent conditions.

Infrastructure access and operational responsibilities

In practice, the relationship between infrastructure managers and railway undertakings is organised through several documents required by EU law. Infrastructure managers must publish a network statement. This document describes the technical characteristics of the network, access conditions, operational rules and the process for requesting train paths. Railway undertakings that are willing to run trains must also conclude an infrastructure access agreement with the infrastructure manager. These agreements set the practical terms for using the network and usually contain rules on liability, compensation and operational cooperation.

Infrastructure managers are responsible for maintaining the railway infrastructure so trains can run safely. This includes tracks, switches, signalling systems and power supply installations. When one of these elements fails, train services may be disrupted. A signalling failure may stop trains on an entire line. A damaged section of track may require speed restrictions or temporary closure of the route. In such cases railway undertakings may claim compensation for delays or additional operational costs, depending on the terms of the access agreement.

Infrastructure managers also organise train movements on the network and allocate railway infrastructure capacity. The EU framework for capacity allocation is also set out in Directive 2012/34/EU. Railway undertakings apply for train paths, and the infrastructure manager decides how the available capacity is distributed. When many operators request the same route at similar times, the infrastructure manager must coordinate those requests and allocate capacity in a transparent and non-discriminatory way.

Railway undertakings also have their own responsibilities. They must operate trains safely and make sure their staff follow the operational rules that apply on the network. Train drivers must respect signalling instructions and traffic management decisions. These obligations form part of the EU railway safety framework set out in Directive 2016/798 on railway safety.

Railway undertakings are also responsible for the technical condition of their rolling stock. Trains must be compliant with the relevant technical requirements and properly maintained before they enter the network. If a defective vehicle causes damage to the infrastructure, the infrastructure manager may seek compensation for repair costs and operational disruptions.

Allocation of liability

Disputes often appear when trains are delayed or services are disrupted. Railway undertakings may claim that the delay was caused by infrastructure problems, for example signalling failures or defects in the track. Infrastructure managers may see it differently and argue that the disruption was caused by the operator, for instance because the train was not ready on time or because of a technical problem with the rolling stock.

Damage to infrastructure can also lead to disagreements. Railway infrastructure is used intensively and is constantly exposed to heavy loads. When damage appears, it is not always clear what caused it. In many situations technical checks are needed before responsibility can be established.

Capacity allocation can also lead to disputes. On busy routes the number of requested train paths may be higher than the available capacity. In such cases the infrastructure manager must decide how the available paths are distributed between operators. If an operator believes that the decision was not fair or transparent, it may question the allocation. EU railway law therefore requires Member States to have independent regulatory bodies that oversee access to railway infrastructure and handle complaints from railway undertakings.

Dispute resolution

Contracts between infrastructure managers and railway undertakings also play an important role in these situations. Infrastructure access agreements usually include provisions on liability, compensation and the way claims should be handled. These agreements help clarify what happens when delays occur or when infrastructure is damaged, and they set out how the risks are shared between the parties.

If a disagreement cannot be solved during regular operations, other options are available. The parties may first try to resolve the issue through negotiation. Railway undertakings may also bring a complaint before the national railway regulator. In more complex situations disputes may eventually go to arbitration or to national courts.

The relationship between infrastructure managers and railway undertakings therefore combines operational cooperation with legal and contractual responsibilities. Clear rules on access to infrastructure and on the division of responsibilities prevent conflicts and support the easy functioning of railway transport across the EU.

Grzegorz Kłodkowski

Attorney at Law (PL)

03.2026

Entity in Charge of Maintenance in European Union (EU) Railway Law

In the European Union’s railway system, safety responsibility does not end once a vehicle is authorised for use. EU law requires that every railway vehicle (as defined in in Article 3 [21] of the Directive [EU] 2016/798) operating on the EU railway network has one designated entity responsible for its technical condition throughout its service life. This entity is the Entity in Charge of Maintenance (ECM). Only one ECM may be assigned to a vehicle at any given time.

The concept follows a simple legal principle: maintenance responsibility is not shared between owners, railway undertaking, workshops or contractors. It is concentrated in one accountable organisation. That organisation must ensure continuous control over maintenance through a structured management system.

The obligation to assign an ECM to each railway vehicle was introduced in Article 14 of the Directive (EU) 2016/798 on railway safety. A vehicle cannot be used on the EU rail network unless an ECM has been designated and registered in the European Vehicle Register. Detailed organisational and certification requirements are defined in EU Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/779. This Regulation introduced a harmonised EU framework specifying tasks that ECMs must perform, internal structure, and certification assessment. There are no nationality requirements. Any entity can act as ECM for vehicles operating in the EU, provided it complies with harmonised rules and obtains required certification.

In legal terms, the ECM’s responsibility is continuous and organisational rather than operational in the narrow sense. The ECM does not need to perform maintenance itself, but it must manage, control and take responsibility for the entire maintenance chain. The core obligation is to ensure that vehicles remain safe for operation at all times. EU legislation requires the ECM system to cover four functions. These functions do not need to correspond to separate departments, but responsibilities must be clearly allocated.

Functional Structure

The Management Function (ECM-F1) provides overall governance of the maintenance system. It defines maintenance policy, allocates responsibilities and resources, and ensures monitoring and continuous improvement.

The Maintenance Development Function (ECM-F2) handles the technical basis of maintenance. It defines maintenance plans and inspection intervals, manages technical documentation and keeps maintenance files up to date.

The Fleet Maintenance Management Function (ECM-F3) ensures operational control of the fleet. It monitors vehicle status, tracks maintenance deadlines and confirms that vehicles return to service only after all requirements are fulfilled.

The Maintenance Delivery Function (ECM-F4) carries out the technical maintenance work or manages its execution. It covers workshops, equipment, supply chain and tools required for maintenance activities.

Together, these functions form a single responsibility chain connecting policy, engineering decisions, operational control and workshop execution.

In order to fulfil its obligations, the ECM must have a Maintenance Management System (MMS) in place. The MMS is the organisational and procedural framework explaining how maintenance is planned, controlled and monitored in practice. It is the central element assessed during certification and subsequent supervision. The MMS must demonstrate how maintenance risks are identified and managed. This typically includes planning procedures, configuration and documentation control, competence management, contractor selection and oversight, record keeping, internal audits and processes for handling defects, incidents and corrective measures.

Authorities examine whether decisions are documented, responsibilities are clear and operational evidence supports the declared system. Building and maintaining an MMS is therefore one of the most demanding aspects of acting as an ECM, as it requires technical, organisational and compliance processes to operate as an integrated single system.

Certification and Supervision

The ECM framework operates through a cooperation of certification bodies, national safety authorities, and European Union Agency for Railways (ERA). Accredited certification bodies are responsible for assessing applicants and issuing certificates. National safety authorities oversee the safe functioning of the railway system and may intervene where maintenance failures affect safety. ERA coordinates the framework, develops guidance and maintains the relevant European registers.

ECM certification is mandatory for entities responsible for freight wagon maintenance and is commonly required in practice for other rolling stock, particularly where vehicles are used commercially or operate across borders. Certificates specify the vehicle types and functions covered and are recognised across the EU. As a result, vehicles operating in several Member States can rely on a single certified ECM.

Overall, the ECM concept serves both safety and market integration objectives. From a safety perspective, it ensures that each vehicle has one clearly identified organisation responsible for its technical condition throughout its lifecycle. From a market perspective, it supports mutual trust between Member States and facilitates cross-border operations.

Grzegorz Kłodkowski

Attorney at Law (PL)

03.2026

European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS) 

The European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS) is a central element of the European Union’s (EU) transport policy. Its objective is to establish a common signalling and train control system across the European railway network.

Historically, railway networks in Europe relied on numerous national signalling systems developed independently by individual EU Member States. This fragmentation made cross-border rail transport technically complex and costly. It also limited interoperability between national railway networks and created significant barriers for international rail services.

ERTMS was developed to address these challenges. The system introduces a harmonised European signalling standard that allows trains to operate across national borders without switching between different national systems. In addition to improving interoperability, ERTMS aims to enhance railway safety and increase the operational efficiency of the European rail network. With this efforts, the EU intends to support the change of freight and passenger transport from road to rail.

Key System Components

ERTMS consists of two main technological components: the European Train Control System (ETCS) and GSM-R.

The European Train Control System (ETCS) supervises train movements and ensures that trains operate within authorised speed limits. It ongoingly monitors train speed and movement and can automatically intervene if operational limits are exceeded. ETCS replaces many signalling functions that were performed by national train protection systems. ETCS provides a standardised train control technology that supports interoperability and allows the gradual replacement of multiple national signalling systems across the European railway network.

The second component of ERTMS is GSM-R (Global System for Mobile Communications – Railway), which provides the railway radio communication system used for operational voice and data exchange. GSM-R allows communication between train drivers, traffic controllers, and infrastructure managers. Reliable communication is essential for train control systems and for the safe management of railway traffic, particularly on busy international corridors.

Deployment

The deployment of ERTMS forms part of the broader EU railway interoperability framework. The legal basis is primarily provided by Directive (EU) 2016/797 on the interoperability of the rail system within the European Union, adopted as part of the Fourth Railway Package.

Technical requirements for signalling systems are set out in the Technical Specifications for Interoperability relating to Control-Command and Signalling (CCS TSI), adopted by the European Commission through implementing acts. The CCS TSI define the technical standards for signalling systems and ensure their compatibility across EU Member States.

The deployment of ERTMS is also closely connected with the development of the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T). The revised TEN-T Regulation adopted in 2024 introduced new deadlines for the installation of ERTMS. EU Member States are required to install ERTMS on the core TEN-T railway network by 2030. The deployment across the extended network is scheduled to continue until 2050. These timelines are intended to ensure the gradual replacement of national signalling systems and the creation of a fully interoperable European railway network.

Implementation Challenges

Despite these objectives, the deployment of ERTMS has been slower than originally planned. Implementation across EU Member States has been uneven and several national networks still rely heavily on national signalling systems. Reports published by the European Commission and the European Union Agency for Railways have identified technical, financial, and organisational challenges that continue to slow down the deployment of the ERTMS.

In response, the European Union has introduced updated deployment plans and technical revisions intended to support implementation. These measures intend to reduce fragmentation between different system versions and to provide better regulatory clarity for infrastructure managers, railway undertakings, and equipment manufacturers.

Another important development concerns the future of railway communications. The current GSM-R system is expected to be gradually replaced by the Future Railway Mobile Communication System (FRMCS). This technology is designed to provide higher data capacity and support more advanced digital railway services. The transition to FRMCS is currently being prepared by the EU authorities.

The deployment of ERTMS also affects railway undertakings and infrastructure managers. Railway operators must gradually equip locomotives and rolling stock with ETCS-compatible onboard systems. This often requires substantial investment and long-term planning.

The European Union Agency for Railways (ERA) coordinates technical work related to ERTMS. ERA prepares technical specifications and cooperates with national authorities on the approval of railway vehicles and signalling equipment. The deployment of ERTMS also requires close cooperation between national authorities.

ERTMS therefore is an important  part of the EU’s efforts to modernise the European railway sector. A common signalling system improves safety and interoperability and supports more efficient rail transport across Europe. However, it is still unclear whether the system will be installed across the entire EU railway network within the deadlines set by EU law.

Grzegorz Kłodkowski

Attorney at Law (PL)

02.2026

National Rules in the EU Rail System

Over the last decade EU railway law has gradually moved from national competences towards a more central legal framework. The Fourth Railway Package reassigned competences, tightened technical harmonisation standards and expanded the role of the European Union Agency for Railways (ERA) in safety certification and vehicle authorisation.

National rules have not disappeared, but their place in the system has changed. They now function mainly as supplementary provisions in a framework that intends to reduce divergence and support interoperability, ultimately supporting the completion of the Single European Railway Area.

Under Directive (EU) 2016/797 and Directive (EU) 2016/798, harmonization is the rule and national regulation the exception. Technical Specification for Interoperability (TSIs), Common Safety Methods and related implementing regulations form the basis of the EU system. EU Member States may adopt or maintain national rules only where EU law leaves actual regulatory discretion, e.g. in cases where no TSI exist, where TSI contain open points, where specific cases are recognised, or where urgent safety concerns arise.

ERA Supervision

A practical example illustrates how this works in practice. In 2022, Lithuania introduced national safety rules establishing requirements for staff executing safety-critical tasks including cargo loading and other operational activities linked to rail safety. The national legislation regulated certification procedures, validity of staff certificates, mandatory training, periodic updates, and the duration and scope of training programmes. Formally, these measures relied on the regulatory space left to Member States under the Railway Safety Directive (EU 2016/798).

Such national competence, however, is subject to strict substantive and procedural limits. National rules must be necessary, proportionate and non-discriminatory. They cannot duplicate or contradict EU requirements. They must also be notified to ERA and pass a compliance assessment. Rules that are not notified, or that fail this assessment, cannot be enforced.

Lithuania notified the rules after their adoption, which triggered the EU review procedure. This notification was essential. Without it, the rules could not take effect within the harmonised EU system. ERA then examined whether the provisions overlapped with existing EU safety legislation, including rules on safety management systems. The assessment found that parts of the Lithuanian rules were not justified under EU law. They risked undermining consistent application of established EU safety requirements and reducing transparency. In that form, the rules could not serve as a valid regulatory basis.

This supervisory approach is part of the ERA’s broader “Rules Cleaning up Programme” which aims to systematically reduce national requirements that hinder market integration. Each notified national rule is classified, reviewed, and compared with harmonised regulations. Where provisions overlap, add unnecessary requirements or conflict with EU law, the Member State must amend or withdraw them. The process is technical but carries legal consequences. If unjustified rules remain in force, the European Commission may initiate infringement proceedings. The programme therefore operates both as a review mechanism and as a supervisory instrument supporting harmonisation.

The operational basis for Rules Cleaning up Programme is the Single Rule Database (SRD) managed by ERA. The SRD brings together all notified national rules, together with their scope and assessment status, in a central digital register. This increases regulatory transparency. Rules that are not properly notified or recorded are visible and cannot be relied upon in authorisation procedures. Operators and manufacturers can check in real time whether a requirement is valid, under review or recommended for withdrawal. The platform is straightforward to use. As of 13 February 2026, it lists 793 national regulations and 59 relating to fixed installations.

Practical Implications

The Lithuanian example reflects broader shift in regulatory approach. National Safety Authorities such as Lietuvos transporto saugos administracija in Lithuania or  Eisenbahn – Bundesamt (EBA) in Germany, continue to supervise activities and enforce safety regulations. However, their ability to shape the regulatory framework itself is increasingly limited by harmonisation at EU level and the ERA review. Regulatory authorities have not disappeared at national level, but they now operate largely within a framework set elsewhere.

For market participants, this structure has specific consequences. National rules continue to influence project risk, authorisation strategy and the choice of technical solutions. Infrastructure-specific parameters, existing requirements or transitional rules may affect vehicle authorisation or operational compatibility. The legal risk no longer arises primarily from the existence of national rules, but from uncertainty about their validity. A requirement applied in practice may later prove unenforceable if it has not been correctly notified or is contrary to EU law.

The conformity assessment must therefore cover not only the TSIs, but also the formal status and legal validity of any national rules referred to in the project. This includes verification of the notification in the SRD, review of ERA assessments and verification that the rule actually concerns a non-harmonised area. For complex cross-border projects, this validation stage is becoming increasingly more important than the technical conformity assessment itself.

The EU railway system is therefore moving towards a model in which national rules function only as justified exceptions within a centrally monitored framework. Harmonisation has not reduced regulatory complexity, but has shifted it from substantive technical differences to issues of legal validity, hierarchy of norms and procedural compliance. For practitioners, expertise now involves less comparison of national systems and more understanding of how remaining national requirements fit – or do not fit – into the EU’s integrated regulatory structure.

Grzegorz Kłodkowski

Attorney at Law (PL)

EU Inc. – The Proposed 28th Corporate Law Regime

The European Union is developing one of the most significant corporate law initiatives of recent years, EU Incorporated (EU Inc.), also known as the “28th Regime”.

On March 18th, the European Commission presented its proposal for the EU Inc. regime. An initiative to create a legal framework for the founding of companies as single EU-based companies, rather as legal persons of a select member state.

The process is planned to be a fully digitalised low-barrier option for the founding of a company. Registration procedures should take up to 48 hours and cost less than EUR 100, without a set minimum share capital. Consequently, liquidation processes are also to be simplified, allowing for greater agility for start ups, and economic exploration.

For businesses operating internationally or planning cross-border expansion within the EU, this initiative may change how corporate structures are established and managed. Despite years of harmonisation, companies operating across the EU still face a fragmented legal environment. Corporate governance rules, incorporation requirements, shareholder rights and restructuring procedures continue to be different between Member States.

The 28th Regime is structured as a voluntary, EU-level corporate law framework that would exist next to national company laws. It would offer companies the option to operate under a single, harmonised set of rules across the entire EU. However, some national provisions will remain in place.

EU Inc. will not free the companies from national employment and social laws. What will be easier is that employees can be hired across the block, with only the applicable law of the employee’s place of residence / work being in force, regardless of where the EU Inc. company is based.

The base of the EU Inc. company will however determine its taxation policy. While the Business in Europe: Framework for Income Taxation (BEFIT) initiative aims to standardise corporate taxation across the EU, the proposal for EU Inc. includes an exception for small and medium sized entreprises (SMEs) to use their national taxation system, in order to remain competitive on their local market.

One of the objectives of the initiative is to strengthen the competitiveness of European companies in the global market. The regulation is intended to facilitate innovation and cross-border operational activities by European companies, but also to enable easier access to the European market by foreign companies.

For foreign companies entering the EU market EU Inc. will change the dynamics of decision making when choosing a member state to start operations from, since certain factors, previously based on national law, will be eliminated. This will change the landscape across industries. Furthermore, under the EU Inc. companies will be able to operate as a single legal entity, without the need for subsidiary structures to set up operations in other member states.

Unter the current slogan, the 28^th Regime is to be introduced by 2028, with a timeline yet to be laid out as discussions of the proposal commence. The Commission’s presentation will move to the European Parliament for further discussion.

Stefan Radaković

Grzegorz Kłodkowski

Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR)   

In 2024, the European Union adopted a new law that will change the way many products are designed, manufactured, and sold on the European Union (EU) market: the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR). The idea is simple but ambitious – products should last longer, use fewer resources, be easier to repair, and cause less waste throughout their lifecycle.

Until now, EU rules on how products were designed and built applied mainly to energy-related goods such as household items and lighting. The focus was on making these devices more energy-efficient so that they consumed less electricity during use. This helped the EU save a lot of energy, but it did not handle other environmental impacts of products, such as the materials they are made of, how long they last, or what happens to them at the end of their lifecycle. The new ESPR changes this approach – it extends the rules to almost all physical goods sold in the EU, from textiles and furniture to electronics and building materials. Only a few categories are excluded, such as food, medicines, or animal products. In short, ESPR changes eco-design from a niche policy into a framework that affects almost every industry.

Designing Products

A key idea of the new rules is that sustainability has to start at the very beginning, when the product is first designed. Instead of being made to have a short lifecycle or to be difficult to fix, products should be built to last, to be repaired when something goes wrong, and to be taken apart easily when they finally reach the end of their life.

Considering a household appliance such as a vacuum cleaner: When a small plastic part or the motor breaks, it often costs more to repair than to buy a new one, so the old machine is thrown away. Under the new approach, spare parts would need to be available and easy to replace, so the vacuum can be repaired and continue working instead of ending up as waste.

Digital Product Passport and Transparency

A new concept introduced by ESPR is the Digital Product Passport (DPP). Every product will come with a digital file that can be opened by scanning a code on the label or packaging. It will show information such as what materials were used, how the product can be repaired, how it should be recycled, what is its environmental footprint and whether spare parts are available. The objective is to provide clear and reliable information not only to authorities, but also to consumers, repair workshops and recyclers. Staying with the example of the vacuum cleaner – its digital passport could list the type of motor it uses, show where replacement parts can be ordered, and explain how it should be recycled once it can no longer be repaired.

The regulation also addresses the problem of unsold goods. In the past, products that were never bought often ended up being destroyed, a practice that has faced growing criticism as consumers are increasingly valuing sustainability. Under the new rules, companies will need to find different solutions. Clothing is perhaps the most striking example: piles of unsold jackets or shoes can no longer be burned or shredded just to make space for the next season’s collection. Instead, businesses will have to recycle them, donate them, or sell them at reduced prices.

The ESPR also puts a strong focus on the reliability of environmental claims of the manufacturers. Terms like “eco-friendly” or “green” have been used in such a broad way that they often gave consumers little real information. This kind of unclear labelling, often referred to as greenwashing, is now being questioned more. Under the new rules, companies will need to be precise and transparent. Any claim about a product’s environmental impact must be clear, specific, and supported by verifiable evidence. The digital product passport will facilitate this by gathering relevant data in one place but also set a higher standard for manufacturers, as companies will have to back up every sustainability claim with real proof.

Implementation and Impact

The ESPR regulation is already in force, but its real effects will be felt gradually. Over the next few years, the European Commission will introduce detailed rules for specific types of products. Textiles, furniture, steel and aluminium, tyres, detergents, paints and various electronics are expected to be among the first. Each product-category will have its own rules, so businesses will need to follow how the requirements develop over time. Besides product-specific rules, there will also be horizontal rules. These are requirements that apply across many product types – such as repairability, recycled content, or recyclability. Companies will not only need to monitor the rules for their product category but also other requirements which may apply commonly.

For smaller businesses, the new rules can seem like a big task. A family-owned furniture shop or a small clothing brand does not have the same resources as a large manufacturer to handle new paperwork or digital systems. The EU acknowledges this and intends to simplify things by offering practical support, standard formats and sometimes even financial help. For example, a small shoe producer will not have to build a product passport system on its own but will be able to use ready-made templates. A local furniture maker might get access to shared data tools that show how to list the source of materials or how to record repair options. This should help smaller companies keep up with competition, so that sustainability isn’t only for the biggest players.

For companies that operate internationally, the consequences extend far outside the borders of the European Union. Any product sold in the EU market will have to meet these standards, no matter where it was produced. For global manufacturers, this can be a turning point. Running separate production lines for different regions often becomes costly and complicated, which is why many will probably find it easier to apply EU standards everywhere. Something similar happened with data protection: once the EU introduced its strict GDPR rules, many global companies adjusted their policies worldwide rather than create one system for Europe and another for the rest of the world.

Preparing for the new ESPR rules means taking some very practical steps:

• Companies will need to know much more about their supply chains, because details about materials and components will have to go into the digital product passport.
• New products will need to be designed with repair and recycling in mind.
• Companies will also need a plan for what to do with unsold units – they can no longer simply be scrapped.
• All this information will have to be stored digitally and shared with both customers and regulators through the product’s passport.

Grzegorz Kłodkowski

NEWS     2.03.2026

Ukraine – EU Rail Integration: Legal Aspects, Infrastructure Alignment, and Recent Developments

Ukraine has started to bring its railway system closer to the European network. The process focuses on aligning legal, technical and safety frameworks with European Union (EU) requirements for cross-border rail transport.

For historical reasons, Ukraine’s railway network was developed using the 1520 mm broad gauge, which remains standard across the post-Soviet region. In contrast, the EU operates predominantly on the 1435 mm standard gauge. As a result, trains cannot operate directly across the EU-Ukraine border. In practice, cargo is transferred between wagons or wheelsets are changed before the train can continue.

The ongoing reform aims to address these limitations by developing selected standard-gauge connections between Ukraine and the EU, while gradually adapting domestic railway regulation to EU interoperability and safety requirements. This process is linked to Ukraine’s integration into the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T).

The current approach does not involve rebuilding the entire Ukrainian railway infrastructure. Instead, standard-gauge lines are being developed along key corridors connecting Ukraine with neighbouring EU Member States. This enables direct connections on strategic routes, while much of the network will continue to operate on the existing broad-gauge system.

Legal Framework

Ukraine’s integration into the EU railway system is based on the gradual alignment of its legislation with the EU legal framework for rail. This includes, in particular, Directive (EU) 2016/797 on interoperability and Directive (EU) 2016/798 on railway safety, which are part of the Fourth Railway Package.

Ukraine is not an EU Member State. However, according to the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement, Ukraine has committed itself to aligning its legislation with key elements of EU transport law, including technical standards, safety requirements, and market access rules. This process is supported by the European Commission and is carried out in cooperation with the European Union Agency for Railways (ERA).

In practice, Ukrainian regulations are being adapted to incorporate EU concepts such as technical specifications for interoperability (TSIs), common safety methods and harmonised procedures for placing vehicles into service. At the same time, due to differences in infrastructure and legacy systems, national rules continue to apply during the transition period, resulting in a hybrid regulation framework.

Another important aspect concerns market organisation. EU policy promotes the separation of infrastructure management from transport operations, as well as non-discriminatory access to infrastructure. Ukraine has initiated reforms in this area, although full alignment with EU requirements is still ongoing.

Planned Developments

From a technical perspective, infrastructure remains the main challenge. The difference in track gauge is the most visible barrier, but it is not the only one. Signalling systems, electrification standards and operational parameters also require gradual adaptation. One of the key developments is the construction of standard-gauge railway lines extending into Ukraine. Projects of this type are intended to provide direct connections between major Ukrainian cities, logistics hubs and the EU standard-gauge network.

At the same time, signalling systems require alignment. For new and modernised lines, ERTMS-compatible solutions, particularly ETCS, are being considered. However, national signalling systems remain in use across most of the network, which continues to limit interoperability in cross-border operations.

Electrification is another important factor. Differences in voltage systems between Ukraine and neighbouring EU Member States require technical adjustments. Operational parameters, such as train length, axle load and safety procedures, also need to be aligned. These factors directly affect capacity and the ability to run cross-border services without restrictions.

Recent developments indicate that the focus is shifting from short-term solutions to more long-term integration. One important step is the extension of TEN-T corridors into Ukraine. This brings Ukraine into the wider European transport planning system, including links to routes such as Baltic-Black Sea and Rhine-Danube.

Funding has also increased. EU instruments, including the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), together with financing from international institutions, are being used for rail projects in Ukraine. The money is mainly going to border crossings, logistics hubs and initial standard gauge connections.

Safety remains a key concern. Part of the rail network has been damaged, resulting in traffic disruptions. This is affecting project completion and means that when new infrastructure is built, its resilience must also be seriously considered.

Overall, the Ukraine-EU rail integration is no longer limited to short-term measures. Now, it is a more structured process combining legal changes and infrastructure developments, with a direction towards integration with the European railway system.

At the same time, this remains a transition phase. The legal framework is still evolving, different technical systems continue to operate, and infrastructure projects require time to complete.

Grzegorz Kłodkowski

NEWS     18.03.2026

European Union Right to Repair Directive   

Product compliance in the European Union (EU) is no longer limited to placing goods on the single market. It now extends to how products are maintained and supported throughout their lifecycle. The EU Right to Repair Directive (Directive) introduces new obligations affecting not only retailers and service providers, but also manufacturers and importers supplying consumer goods to the EU. Its objective is to make the repair of goods more accessible and realistic in practice, including across international supply chains.

Under the new rules, repairs must be available for certain categories of goods even after the legal guarantee period has expired, unless technically or legally impossible. The Directive applies mainly to products that are already subject to EU reparability requirements under other legislation, such as Ecodesign rules covering selected appliances, electronic displays, smartphones, and similar products.

Repair Obligations and Lifecycle Service Requirements

For companies operating in B2B supply chains, the impact is less about individual consumer claims and more about long-term ability to offer after-sale services and lifecycle planning. Where the Directive applies, manufacturers must be able to offer repair for the relevant products for as long as the EU requirements concerning repair remain in force and a repair is still technically possible. Repairs do not have to be free beyond the legal guarantee period, but pricing must be reasonable. In practice, this means companies placing products on the EU market may need to maintain repair capacity, spare-parts supply, and technical support for longer than before.

Although the Directive imposes the repair obligation primarily on the manufacturer, the practical effect is broader. If the manufacturer is established outside the EU, the obligation may be fulfilled by an authorised representative, importer, or ultimately, distributor established in the EU. In real situations customers usually approach EU operators first. If repairs cannot be carried out, spare parts are unavailable, or the necessary technical documentation is missing, the importer may face immediate legal risk. Informal guarantees from the manufacturer will probably not be sufficient. Importers increasingly require clear, documented proof that repairs can be performed within the EU.

The Directive also increases transparency around repair conditions. A standard European Repair Information Form can be used by repairers to present key terms such as price or pricing method, expected repair time, and service conditions. While the form is issued by the repairer, the reliability of that information often depends on the manufacturer’s parts logistics and service structure.

Implementation and Impact

For manufacturers outside the EU, one of the first immediate effects is likely to appear within supply contracts. European importers and distributors should already be reviewing agreements to address spare-part availability periods, access to technical documentation and software tools, allocation of repair-related costs, and responsibility for issues identified during servicing. Where these points are not clearly defined, the EU-based importer may bear the initial regulatory exposure and then seek recovery from the manufacturer.

Enforcement details will depend on national implementing laws and the practice of local authorities. Still, it is reasonable to expect that the new framework will be used where repair is refused or delayed, and that cross-border supply chains may involve multiple jurisdictions – for example where goods are manufactured outside the EU, imported through one Member State, and sold in another. This can affect questions of jurisdiction, applicable law, and allocation of repair-related costs between commercial partners.

In practical terms, businesses supplying the EU market should treat repair readiness as part of their compliance planning. This includes verifying whether products fall within EU reparability legislation, ensuring spare parts remain available for the required period, confirming that repair documentation and tools can be provided where needed, and making sure that repairs can be performed within the EU through internal or contracted service networks. Early alignment between manufacturers and EU importers on these issues can prevent disputes and reduce the risk of enforcement problems or supply disruptions once national rules take effect.

EU Member States are required to implement the Directive into their national legal systems by July 31, 2026.

Grzegorz Kłodkowski

NEWS     16.03.2026

Electronic Freight Transport Information – Regulation (EU) 2020/1056

For many years, operators transporting goods across the European Union (EU) have been required to present paper documents during roadside inspections or administrative checks. Regulation (EU) 2020/1056 on electronic freight transport information (eFTI Regulation) is intended to change this practice by creating a common legal framework for providing transport-related regulatory information to public authorities in electronic form. As an EU regulation, it applies directly in all Member States.

Although formally addressed to public authorities, the eFTI Regulation has practical implications for the entire logistics chain. It affects how carriers, freight forwarders, logistics providers and shippers organise, store and exchange compliance-related transport data.

Scope and Function

The eFTI Regulation applies only to information that undertakings are already required to provide under EU or national laws in connection with transport of goods. It covers multimodal transport operations including road, rail, inland waterway and air transport, as well as combination of these modes.

The eFTI Regulation does not create new reporting duties. Its purpose is procedural: it defines how legally required transport information may be made available electronically through certified eFTI platforms. The focus is therefore on the format, accessibility and verification of data rather than on the legal content of transport documents themselves. In practice, however, regulatory data often overlaps with commercial documentation, so the framework may influence how transport documents are generated and managed within supply chains.

The eFTI framework should be distinguished from instruments governing electronic transport documents used in private law relationships, such as electronic consignment notes under the CMR regime or electronic bills of lading in maritime transport. Those documents primarily serve evidentiary and contractual functions between private parties. By contrast, the eFTI Regulation concerns the electronic availability of compliance information for public authorities during inspections or administrative procedures.

Digital Transport Data

A central legal effect of the eFTI Regulation is the obligation imposed on Member States. From 9 July 2027, competent authorities must accept regulatory transport information in electronic form, provided it is made available through a certified eFTI platform. Authorities may no longer require the same information to be presented on paper if the electronic version meets the regulation’s requirements.

Businesses may continue to use paper documentation if they choose to do so. The eFTI Regulation does not impose a direct duty to digitalise transport information. In practice, however, once electronic information is accepted across the EU, operators engaged in cross-border or multimodal transport are likely to move towards digital solutions. Paper documentation in such operations often leads to delays, inconsistencies or verification issues during inspections.

Implications for Logistics Operators

A central legal effect of the eFTI Regulation is the obligation imposed on Member States. From 9 July 2027, competent authorities must accept regulatory transport information in electronic form, provided it is made available through a certified eFTI platform. Authorities may no longer require the same information to be presented on paper if the electronic version meets the regulation’s requirements.

Businesses may continue to use paper documentation if they choose to do so. The eFTI Regulation does not impose a direct duty to digitalise transport information. In practice, however, once electronic information is accepted across the EU, operators engaged in cross-border or multimodal transport are likely to move towards digital solutions. Paper documentation in such operations often leads to delays, inconsistencies or verification issues during inspections.

Implications for Logistics Operators

For companies active in logistics, preparation should begin before 2027. The first step is to identify which regulatory transport information is currently submitted in paper form and where this data already exists in digital systems. The next step is technical: assessing whether existing transport or document management systems can connect to certified eFTI platforms, or whether external platform providers will be required.

Contractual arrangements may also need adjustment. Agreements between shippers, forwarders and carriers should clearly allocate responsibility for entering regulatory data, updating it and ensuring its accuracy. This becomes especially relevant in structures involving multiple subcontractors. Clear allocation of responsibilities reduces the risk of disputes once electronic inspections become standard practice. Companies operating in several Member States should also follow national implementation practices and administrative guidance, as inspection approach may differ during the transition period.

The eFTI Regulation is therefore not simply a move from paper to electronic documents. It establishes a structured system in which regulatory transport information can be provided digitally, accessed by authorities when needed and linked across multimodal and multi jurisdiction transport operations. For logistics operators, the main impact is less about formal legal change and more about organisational and technical adjustments required to make regulatory data consistently available in a verified electronic system.

Grzegorz Kłodkowski

EU-India Free Trade Agreement: Political Agreement Reached

In January 2026 the European Union (EU) and India announced that they had reached a political agreement on a Free Trade Agreement (FTA). Negotiations began in 2007 but were suspended in 2013 after several rounds failed to resolve differences on tariffs, services and intellectual property. Talks were formally resumed in 2022.

The EU and India already maintain significant economic relations. In 2024 bilateral trade in goods reached around €120 billion, making the EU one of India’s largest trading partners. Services trade has also expanded, reaching almost €60 billion in 2023. If implemented, the FTA will form one of the largest bilateral trade frameworks concluded by the European Union.

With the political agreement now reached, the next step is the finalisation of the legal text and the ratification procedures required on both sides before the FTA can enter into force.

Goods

Market access for goods is one of the main elements of the agreement. Tariff reductions are expected across a wide range of products traded between the EU and India.

Under the political agreement, the EU will remove tariffs on more than 90 % of tariff lines, corresponding to around 91 % of the value of imports from India. India will eliminate tariffs on around 86 % of tariff lines, representing about 93 % of EU exports by value. With additional partial liberalisation, the overall coverage of trade liberalisation will reach approximately 99 % of EU imports from India and about 96 % of EU exports to India.

India currently applies relatively high tariffs in several sectors of interest to European exporters, including automobiles, machinery, wines and spirits and certain agricultural products. The FTA may therefore improve conditions for EU companies exporting industrial and agricultural goods to India. And for India, the agreement may further facilitate exports to the EU in sectors such as textiles and clothing, engineering goods, pharmaceuticals and certain agricultural products.

Tariff reductions are expected to be implemented gradually rather than immediately. Sensitive sectors on both sides may be subject to longer transition periods or only partial liberalisation. Furthermore, preferential tariff treatment will depend on compliance with the agreement’s rules of origin.

Technical Regulations

The EU-India negotiations addressed issues such as product standards, certification procedures and regulatory transparency. Exporters often need to prove that their products comply with the regulatory requirements of the importing market, which can involve testing, certification and documentation.

Provisions in this area generally aim to improve transparency and predictability in regulatory processes rather than to harmonise rules between the EU and India. The agreement also includes provisions related to customs cooperation and trade facilitation. These measures address issues such as information exchange between customs authorities and the use of electronic documentation in cross-border trade.

Services

Trade in services is another important component of the agreement. Both the EU and India committed to improve market access for service providers in selected sectors. According to the negotiated framework, the EU grants India access to more than 140 service sub-sectors, while India opens over 100 service sub-sectors to EU providers.

These sectors include financial services, telecommunications, maritime transport and certain professional services. The agreement will reduce some of the restrictions that currently apply to foreign service providers. The FTA also addresses regulatory conditions affecting the provision of services. This includes licensing procedures, administrative requirements and regulatory transparency for companies operating in another market.

Intellectual Property

The FTA includes provisions relating to the protection of intellectual property rights. These provisions address areas such as trademarks, patents, industrial designs and copyright protection. Transparent intellectual property rules are particularly relevant for companies operating in sectors where branding is important, including e.g. pharmaceuticals, technology and consumer products.

Parallel negotiations between the EU and India are also addressing the protection of geographical indications. These rules protect the names of products associated with a specific region, particularly in the case of certain wines, spirits and agricultural products.

Labour Law and Sustainable Development

The agreement contains provisions relating to labour rights and environmental protection, which confirm commitments under international frameworks such as the conventions of the International Labour Organization and the Paris Agreement on climate change. They also include commitments relating to climate cooperation and sustainable economic development. Implementation of these provisions generally relies on cooperation and dialogue between the parties.

Investment

For many companies, entering a foreign market involves establishing subsidiaries, branches or other forms of commercial presence. Trade agreements often address such issues by clarifying the regulatory framework for market entry and business operations.

Questions relating to the protection of investments and dispute settlement are not included directly in the FTA. Instead, the EU and India are negotiating a separate EU-India Investment Protection Аgreement addressing standards of investment protection and dispute resolution.

Entry into Force

Although negotiations have been concluded politically, the agreement must still undergo several steps before it becomes legally binding.

The legal text must be finalised after which the agreement will be submitted for approval through the relevant procedures in the European Union and India. Only once these processes are completed will the agreement enter into force.

Grzegorz Kłodkowski