EuGH · C-683/20

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Eighth Chamber) 13 January 2022 ( *1 ) (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Environment – Directive 2002/49/EC – Assessment and management of environmental noise – Major roads and major railways – Article 8(2) – Action plans – Article 10(2) – Annex VI – Summaries of action plans – Failure to communicate to the Commission within the prescribed period) In Case C‑683/20, ACTION for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 258 TFEU, brought on 17 December 2020, European Commission, represented by R. Lindenthal and M. Noll-Ehlers, acting as Agents, applicant, v Slovak Republic, represented by B. Ricziová, acting as Agent, defendant, THE COURT (Eighth Chamber), composed of J. Passer (Rapporteur), President of the Seventh Chamber, acting as President of the Eighth Chamber, F. Biltgen and N. Wahl, Judges, Advocate General: P. Pikamäe, Registrar: A. Calot Escobar, having regard to the written procedure, having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion, gives the following Judgment 1 By its application, the European Commission asks the Court to declare that, by failing to draw up action plans and by not communicating to the Commission summaries of action plans for the major roads and major railways referred to in the annex to this judgment, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8(2) and under Article 10(2) of Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise (OJ 2002 L 189, p. 12), read in conjunction with Annex VI thereto. Legal context 2 Article 3 of Directive 2002/49, titled ‘Definitions’, states as follows: ‘For the purposes of this Directive: … (n) “major road” shall mean a regional, national or international road, designated by the Member State, which has more than three million vehicle passages a year; (o) “major railway” shall mean a railway, designated by the Member State, which has more than 30000 train passages per year; … (t) “action plans” shall mean plans designed to manage noise issues and effects, including noise reduction if necessary; …’ 3 Article 8 of that directive, entitled ‘Action plans’, provides as follows: ‘… 2. Member States shall ensure that, no later than 18 July 2013, the competent authorities have drawn up action plans notably to address priorities which may be identified by the exceeding of any relevant limit value or by other criteria chosen by the Member States for the agglomerations and for the major roads as well as the major railways within their territories. … 5. The action plans shall be reviewed, and revised if necessary, when a major development occurs affecting the existing noise situation, and at least every five years after the date of their approval. … 7. Member States shall ensure that the public is consulted about proposals for action plans, given early and effective opportunities to participate in the preparation and review of the action plans, that the results of that participation are taken into account and that the public is informed on the decisions taken. Reasonable time-frames shall be provided allowing sufficient time for each stage of public participation. If the obligation to carry out a public participation procedure arises simultaneously from this Directive and any other [EU] legislation, Member States may provide for joint procedures in order to avoid duplication.’ 4 Article 10 of that directive, entitled ‘Collection and publication of data by Member States and the Commission’, provides as follows, in paragraph 2 thereof: ‘The Member States shall ensure that the information from strategic noise maps and summaries of the action plans as referred to in Annex VI are sent to the Commission within six months of the dates laid down in Articles 7 and 8 respectively.’ 5 Annex V to that directive lays down the minimum requirements for action plans. 6 Annex VI to that directive sets out the data to be sent to the Commission, including, inter alia, for major roads, major railways and major airports ‘a summary of the action plan covering all the important aspects referred to in Annex V, not exceeding ten pages in length’. Pre-litigation procedure 7 On 25 June 2010, the Slovak authorities communicated to the Commission, by means of the Reportnet electronic portal of the European Environmental Information and Observation Network (Eionet), a list of agglomerations, major roads, major railways and major airports falling within the scope of Directive 2002/49. On 16 January 2014, it updated that list as far as the major railways were concerned. 8 On 27 March 2015, following an initial exchange of letters, the Commission’s services sent the Slovak authorities, in the context of EU Pilot procedure 7453/15/ENVI, a request concerning the implementation of Directive 2002/49. 9 On 26 May 2015, the Slovak authorities replied to that request and, on 24 July 2015, updated the data relating to agglomerations and major roads. 10 On 29 April 2016, the Commission sent the Slovak Republic a letter of formal notice in which it found several failures by that Member State to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2002/49, in particular the obligation laid down in Article 8(2) to draw up action plans, as well as that, provided for in Article 10(2), read in conjunction with Annexes V and VI to that directive, to send it summaries of those action plans. 11 By letter of 17 June 2016 the Slovak Republic replied to that letter of formal notice. 12 On 15 June 2017, after examining that reply and the information communicated subsequently to that reply, the Commission sent the Slovak Republic a reasoned opinion. In that opinion, it found, inter alia, that that Member State had not drawn up action plans for 462 major roads and 16 major railways, in breach of Article 8(2) and (4) of Directive 2002/49, read in conjunction with Annex V thereto, and had not sent, in respect of those major roads and major railways, the summaries of the action plans, in breach of Article 10(2) of that directive, read in conjunction with Annexes V and VI thereto. The Commission set the Slovak Republic a deadline of two months from receipt of that opinion within which to adopt the measures necessary to put an end to those infringements. 13 By letter of 24 July 2017, the Slovak Republic stated that it had not been able to comply fully and in due time with the obligations arising under Directive 2002/49 because the road infrastructure managers and railway operators had failed to comply with their legal obligations within the prescribed periods. That Member State also informed the Commission that 17 action plans concerning major roads were in the process of being prepared. 14 On 21 August and 10 September 2020, the Slovak authorities sent new information to the Eionet network concerning the major roads and major railways, respectively. 15 Taking the view that the Slovak Republic had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8(2) and under Article 10(2) of Directive 2002/49, read in conjunction with Annex VI thereto, the Commission decided to bring the present action. The action Arguments of the parties 16 While acknowledging that the Slovak Republic has made some progress in the implementation of Directive 2002/49 since the initiation of the proceedings, the Commission claims that that Member State has failed to fulfil its obligation to send it summaries of the action plans in respect of 445 major roads outside agglomerations and 16 major railways outside agglomerations, as provided for in Article 10(2) of Directive 2002/49, read in conjunction with Annex VI thereto. Given the absence of any information to the contrary, the Commission thus infers that the Slovak Republic has not drawn up action plans for those roads and railways and has therefore failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 8(2) of that directive. 17 The Slovak Republic concedes that it fulfilled late its obligations under Article 8(2) and Article 10(2) of Directive 2002/49. It nevertheless considers that the present action has become devoid of purpose. 18 It claims that, having sent to the Commission, on 10 September 2020, a document entitled ‘Action plan for protection against noise from certain major railways managed by the Slovak national railway company (ŽSR) in operation in 2011 – Summary’, dating from July 2013, and, on 31 December 2020, a document entitled ‘Action plan for protection against noise from certain major roads managed by the Slovak Road Administration (SSC) on the basis of the situation in 2011 – Summary’, dating from November 2020, none of the alleged failures to fulfil obligations remain applicable. 19 In its reply, the Commission disputes the relevance of those documents. It submits that those documents refer to public consultations carried out in 2020. Since public consultations must, in accordance with Article 8(7) of Directive 2002/49, precede the adoption of action plans, those documents cannot therefore relate to action plans covering the period from 2013 to 2018. They are probably recent documents relating to a past situation. It follows from a systematic interpretation of the provisions of Directive 2002/49 that an action plan must be adopted in good time to cover a future period. In particular, it follows from the system of obligations established by that directive, in particular Article 8(5) thereof, that, after five years at the latest, action plans are to be reviewed and, if necessary, revised. Consequently, the adoption in 2020 of the action plan which should have been drawn up in 2013 cannot lead to compliance with Directive 2002/49. Were it possible to adopt action plans after the expiry of the period to which they relate, Directive 2002/49 would be rendered redundant. 20 The Commission adds that, in any event, the issue of whether the Slovak Republic fulfilled its obligations under Article 8(2) and Article 10(2) of Directive 2002/49 must be assessed by reference to the situation prevailing at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion, in the present case, on 15 August 2017. It is common ground that, on that date, the Slovak Republic had yet to draw up action plans for 445 major roads and 16 major railways. 21 The Slovak Republic rejects the Commission’s line of argument, which it submits is illogical and confused. It maintains that it follows from Directive 2002/49 that the action plans which that Member State was required to draw up for 16 major railways and 445 major roads before 18 July 2013 had to rely on data from 2011 and to include the measures for the years 2013 to 2018. The Slovak Republic claims that it fulfilled that obligation a posteriori. The requirements set out by the Commission at the reply stage amount, in practice, to the Slovak Republic being obliged to refrain from endeavouring, if only a posteriori, to fulfil the obligation laid down in Article 8(2) of Directive 2002/49 and referred to in the present action, while requiring it to seek to fulfil another obligation, namely that laid down in Article 8(5) of Directive 2002/49 – an obligation in respect of which no infringement proceedings have been brought against it. In other words, the Commission’s arguments mean that if a Member State has not fulfilled its obligations within the period laid down by that directive, then it will never be able to do so. 22 In the event that the Commission alleges, in the reply, that the Slovak Republic failed to fulfil the obligation to carry out in good time a public consultation on the action plans, laid down in Article 8(7) of Directive 2002/49, and the obligation to review or revise action plans at the latest five years after their date of approval, laid down in Article 8(5) of Directive 2002/49, the Slovak Republic submits that those complaints are inadmissible. 23 Furthermore, the Slovak Republic points out, first, that, even though the action plans which are the subject of the action were not finalised until 2020, that does not mean that no measure to combat environmental noise was adopted with regard to the major roads and major railways concerned after 2013. In that regard, it mentions several measures for the modernisation of railway lines or aimed directly at reducing noise sources. 24 Next, the Slovak Republic contends that it is fully aware of its obligations under Article 8(5) of Directive 2002/49. It states that, in accordance with that provision, it drew up and communicated to the Commission several summaries of action plans taking into account the situation in respect of 2016. 25 Lastly, the Slovak Republic points out that it was far from being the only Member State to have delayed in fulfilling the obligations under Article 8(2) and Article 10(2) of Directive 2002/49. Findings of the Court 26 In accordance with the Court’s settled case-law, the issue whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in the Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion and the Court cannot take account of any subsequent changes (see judgment of 27 January 2021, Commission v Austria(VAT – Travel agencies), C‑787/19, not published, EU:C:2021:72, paragraph 34 and the case-law cited). 27 In the present case, the Slovak Republic does not dispute that, on the expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion, namely 15 August 2017, it had not drawn up action plans for the major roads and major railways referred to in the annex to the present judgment, nor forwarded to the Commission summaries of those action plans. 28 As regards the documents entitled ‘Action plan for protection against noise from certain major railways managed by the Slovak national railway company (ŽSR) in operation in 2011 – Summary’ and ‘Action plan for protection against noise from certain major roads managed by the Slovak Road Administration (SSC) on the basis of the situation in 2011 – Summary’, the Slovak Republic does not dispute that it communicated them to the Commission on 10 September and 31 December 2020, that is to say, after the expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion. As regards the first of those two documents, it also states that the reference to 2013 (see paragraph 18 above) was retained on that document, as it was initially to have been drawn up in 2013. However, it confirms that even that document was not finalised until 2020, after the public consultation. 29 It follows that, in accordance with the case-law cited in paragraph 26 above, those documents are irrelevant for the purposes of assessing the existence, at that date, of the alleged infringements. 30 Furthermore, it must be noted that the Slovak Republic’s claim concerning the inadmissibility of some of the Commission’s arguments is based on a misreading of the Commission’s pleadings. 31 As the Slovak Republic itself points out, the Commission does not ask the Court to find that there has been a failure to fulfil obligations other than those laid down in Article 8(2) and Article 10(2) of Directive 2002/49. 32 In fact, the Commission referred to the obligations to revise the action plans and consult the public about proposals for action plans, laid down in Article 8(5) and (7) of that directive, solely in the context of the documents referred to in paragraph 28 above, in order to demonstrate, in particular, that those documents were adopted recently and, in any event, after the expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion, a fact which is not disputed in the present proceedings by the Slovak Republic. 33 In so far as the Slovak Republic points out that it was far from being the only Member State to have delayed in fulfilling the obligations arising under Article 8(2) and Article 10(2) of Directive 2002/49, suffice it to note that the Court has repeatedly held that a Member State cannot justify its failure to fulfil its obligations under the FEU Treaty by pointing to the fact that other Member States have also failed, and continue to fail, to fulfil their obligations (judgment of 18 November 2010, Commission v Spain, C‑48/10, not published, EU:C:2010:704, paragraph 33 and the case-law cited). 34 Accordingly, the action must be upheld. 35 In the light of all the foregoing considerations, it must be held that, by failing, first, to draw up action plans for the major roads and major railways referred to in the annex to this judgment and, secondly, by not communicating to the Commission summaries of those action plans, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8(2) and under Article 10(2) of Directive 2002/49, read in conjunction with Annex VI thereto, respectively. Costs 36 Under Article 138(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since the Commission has applied for costs and the Slovak Republic has been unsuccessful, the latter must be ordered to pay the costs. On those grounds, the Court (Eighth Chamber) hereby: 1. Declares that, by failing, first, to draw up action plans for the major roads and major railways referred to in the annex to this judgment, and, secondly, by not communicating to the European Commission summaries of those action plans, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8(2) and under Article 10(2) of Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise, read in conjunction with Annex VI thereto, respectively; 2. Orders the Slovak Republic to pay the costs. [Signatures] Annex Major roads National identification number Unique identification number 90269 SK_b_rd001 90260 SK_b_rd002 90290 SK_b_rd003 90290 SK_b_rd004 90308 SK_b_rd005 90308 SK_b_rd006 90309 SK_b_rd007 90309 SK_b_rd008 90309 SK_b_rd009 90100 SK_b_rd010 90100 SK_b_rd011 90100 SK_b_rd012 90118 SK_b_rd013 90118 SK_b_rd014 90118 SK_b_rd015 90118 SK_b_rd016 90119 SK_b_rd017 90120 SK_b_rd018 90120 SK_b_rd019 90120 SK_b_rd020 90120 SK_b_rd021 90120 SK_b_rd022 90120 SK_b_rd023 90130 SK_b_rd024 90130 SK_b_rd025 90140 SK_b_rd026 90149 SK_b_rd027 90149 SK_b_rd028 90149 SK_b_rd029 90149 SK_b_rd030 90149 SK_b_rd031 90158 SK_b_rd032 90158 SK_b_rd033 90158 SK_b_rd034 90158 SK_b_rd035 90158 SK_b_rd036 90158 SK_b_rd037 90169 SK_b_rd038 90170 SK_b_rd039 90180 SK_b_rd040 90180 SK_b_rd041 90187 SK_b_rd042 90187 SK_b_rd043 90187 SK_b_rd044 90210 SK_b_rd045 90210 SK_b_rd046 90220 SK_b_rd047 37 SK_b_rd048 30 SK_b_rd049 30 SK_b_rd050 47 SK_b_rd051 47 SK_b_rd052 40 SK_b_rd053 40 SK_b_rd054 69 SK_b_rd055 69 SK_b_rd056 60 SK_b_rd057 60 SK_b_rd058 60 SK_b_rd059 60 SK_b_rd060 60 SK_b_rd061 60 SK_b_rd062 66 SK_b_rd063 70 SK_b_rd064 70 SK_b_rd065 70 SK_b_rd066 80 SK_b_rd067 127 SK_b_rd068 127 SK_b_rd069 127 SK_b_rd070 130 SK_b_rd071 380 SK_b_rd072 390 SK_b_rd073 390 SK_b_rd074 390 SK_b_rd075 390 SK_b_rd076 390 SK_b_rd077 410 SK_b_rd078 410 SK_b_rd079 410 SK_b_rd080 410 SK_b_rd081 410 SK_b_rd082 420 SK_b_rd083 420 SK_b_rd084 430 SK_b_rd085 430 SK_b_rd086 430 SK_b_rd087 430 SK_b_rd088 440 SK_b_rd089 446 SK_b_rd090 470 SK_b_rd091 80027 SK_b_rd092 80027 SK_b_rd093 80027 SK_b_rd094 80027 SK_b_rd095 80027 SK_b_rd096 80027 SK_b_rd097 80027 SK_b_rd098 80026 SK_b_rd099 80630 SK_b_rd100 80630 SK_b_rd101 80640 SK_b_rd102 80658 SK_b_rd103 80658 SK_b_rd104 80659 SK_b_rd105 80659 SK_b_rd106 83660 SK_b_rd107 83668 SK_b_rd108 83668 SK_b_rd109 83668 SK_b_rd110 83668 SK_b_rd111 83668 SK_b_rd112 83668 SK_b_rd113 92099 SK_b_rd114 92099 SK_b_rd115 92099 SK_b_rd116 92099 SK_b_rd117 92099 SK_b_rd118 92100 SK_b_rd119 92107 SK_b_rd120 92107 SK_b_rd121 92107 SK_b_rd122 91450 SK_b_rd123 91450 SK_b_rd124 92107 SK_b_rd125 92107 SK_b_rd126 92107 SK_b_rd127 91456 SK_b_rd128 92117 SK_b_rd129 92117 SK_b_rd130 92110 SK_b_rd131 92110 SK_b_rd132 92110 SK_b_rd133 92110 SK_b_rd134 92120 SK_b_rd135 92120 SK_b_rd136 92150 SK_b_rd137 92160 SK_b_rd138 92160 SK_b_rd139 90460 SK_b_rd140 90470 SK_b_rd141 90470 SK_b_rd142 90480 SK_b_rd143 90480 SK_b_rd144 90480 SK_b_rd145 90480 SK_b_rd146 90490 SK_b_rd147 90490 SK_b_rd148 90490 SK_b_rd149 90500 SK_b_rd150 90509 SK_b_rd151 90510 SK_b_rd152 90510 SK_b_rd153 90510 SK_b_rd154 90510 SK_b_rd155 90510 SK_b_rd156 90520 SK_b_rd157 90520 SK_b_rd158 90527 SK_b_rd159 90527 SK_b_rd160 90527 SK_b_rd161 90527 SK_b_rd162 90527 SK_b_rd163 90527 SK_b_rd164 90527 SK_b_rd165 90527 SK_b_rd166 90527 SK_b_rd167 90530 SK_b_rd168 90536 SK_b_rd169 90540 SK_b_rd170 90550 SK_b_rd171 90550 SK_b_rd172 90550 SK_b_rd173 90560 SK_b_rd174 90560 SK_b_rd175 90560 SK_b_rd176 90560 SK_b_rd177 90580 SK_b_rd178 90580 SK_b_rd179 90590 SK_b_rd180 90596 SK_b_rd181 540 SK_b_rd182 540 SK_b_rd183 540 SK_b_rd184 550 SK_b_rd185 600 SK_b_rd186 618 SK_b_rd187 618 SK_b_rd188 618 SK_b_rd189 239 SK_b_rd190 239 SK_b_rd191 240 SK_b_rd192 240 SK_b_rd193 240 SK_b_rd194 258 SK_b_rd195 269 SK_b_rd196 270 SK_b_rd197 270 SK_b_rd198 280 SK_b_rd199 290 SK_b_rd200 290 SK_b_rd201 299 SK_b_rd202 300 SK_b_rd203 300 SK_b_rd204 310 SK_b_rd205 310 SK_b_rd206 80750 SK_b_rd207 80750 SK_b_rd208 80750 SK_b_rd209 80780 SK_b_rd210 80780 SK_b_rd211 85520 SK_b_rd212 85526 SK_b_rd213 85526 SK_b_rd214 85526 SK_b_rd215 85526 SK_b_rd216 85526 SK_b_rd217 81170 SK_b_rd218 81170 SK_b_rd219 81180 SK_b_rd220 81180 SK_b_rd221 81180 SK_b_rd222 81180 SK_b_rd223 81200 SK_b_rd224 81200 SK_b_rd225 81230 SK_b_rd226 81230 SK_b_rd227 81720 SK_b_rd228 81720 SK_b_rd229 81726 SK_b_rd230 81726 SK_b_rd231 81726 SK_b_rd232 81726 SK_b_rd233 81726 SK_b_rd234 81726 SK_b_rd235 81726 SK_b_rd236 90660 SK_b_rd237 90660 SK_b_rd238 90660 SK_b_rd239 90670 SK_b_rd240 90670 SK_b_rd241 90700 SK_b_rd242 90756 SK_b_rd243 90750 SK_b_rd244 90750 SK_b_rd245 90750 SK_b_rd246 90750 SK_b_rd247 90780 SK_b_rd248 90780 SK_b_rd249 90790 SK_b_rd250 90790 SK_b_rd251 80140 SK_b_rd252 80146 SK_b_rd253 80190 SK_b_rd254 80190 SK_b_rd255 80190 SK_b_rd256 80200 SK_b_rd257 80200 SK_b_rd258 80200 SK_b_rd259 80200 SK_b_rd260 80260 SK_b_rd261 80030 SK_b_rd262 80030 SK_b_rd263 80040 SK_b_rd264 80050 SK_b_rd265 90019 SK_b_rd266 90019 SK_b_rd267 90019 SK_b_rd268 90019 SK_b_rd269 90019 SK_b_rd270 90019 SK_b_rd271 90010 SK_b_rd272 90010 SK_b_rd273 90040 SK_b_rd274 90040 SK_b_rd275 90040 SK_b_rd276 90040 SK_b_rd277 80286 SK_b_rd278 80286 SK_b_rd279 80286 SK_b_rd280 80288 SK_b_rd281 80288 SK_b_rd282 80288 SK_b_rd283 80288 SK_b_rd284 80288 SK_b_rd285 80289 SK_b_rd286 80289 SK_b_rd287 80296 SK_b_rd288 80297 SK_b_rd289 80297 SK_b_rd290 80297 SK_b_rd291 80297 SK_b_rd292 81460 SK_b_rd293 81460 SK_b_rd294 81478 SK_b_rd295 81478 SK_b_rd296 81478 SK_b_rd297 81479 SK_b_rd298 81480 SK_b_rd299 81480 SK_b_rd300 81480 SK_b_rd301 81480 SK_b_rd302 81496 SK_b_rd303 81496 SK_b_rd304 81496 SK_b_rd305 81496 SK_b_rd306 81500 SK_b_rd307 81510 SK_b_rd308 81510 SK_b_rd309 81510 SK_b_rd310 81510 SK_b_rd311 81570 SK_b_rd312 81570 SK_b_rd313 81570 SK_b_rd314 80420 SK_b_rd315 80458 SK_b_rd316 80459 SK_b_rd317 80560 SK_b_rd318 80560 SK_b_rd319 80570 SK_b_rd320 80590 SK_b_rd321 80590 SK_b_rd322 80620 SK_b_rd323 80628 SK_b_rd324 80628 SK_b_rd325 80628 SK_b_rd326 80628 SK_b_rd327 91460 SK_b_rd328 91460 SK_b_rd329 91460 SK_b_rd330 91440 SK_b_rd331 91440 SK_b_rd332 91430 SK_b_rd333 91430 SK_b_rd334 91430 SK_b_rd335 91380 SK_b_rd336 91380 SK_b_rd337 91380 SK_b_rd338 91370 SK_b_rd339 91370 SK_b_rd340 91360 SK_b_rd341 80350 SK_b_rd342 80350 SK_b_rd343 80357 SK_b_rd344 80357 SK_b_rd345 80360 SK_b_rd346 80360 SK_b_rd347 80360 SK_b_rd348 80370 SK_b_rd349 80370 SK_b_rd350 80380 SK_b_rd351 80390 SK_b_rd352 80390 SK_b_rd353 80390 SK_b_rd354 80390 SK_b_rd355 90390 SK_b_rd356 90390 SK_b_rd357 91300 SK_b_rd358 91300 SK_b_rd359 91296 SK_b_rd360 91290 SK_b_rd361 91290 SK_b_rd362 91260 SK_b_rd363 91250 SK_b_rd364 91250 SK_b_rd365 91550 SK_b_rd366 91550 SK_b_rd367 91530 SK_b_rd368 91530 SK_b_rd369 95376 SK_b_rd370 95377 SK_b_rd371 95380 SK_b_rd372 95380 SK_b_rd373 95377 SK_b_rd374 95376 SK_b_rd375 90880 SK_b_rd376 90880 SK_b_rd377 90897 SK_b_rd378 90897 SK_b_rd379 90900 SK_b_rd380 90900 SK_b_rd381 90900 SK_b_rd382 90900 SK_b_rd383 90900 SK_b_rd384 90910 SK_b_rd385 90910 SK_b_rd386 90910 SK_b_rd387 90920 SK_b_rd388 90930 SK_b_rd389 90930 SK_b_rd390 90937 SK_b_rd391 90937 SK_b_rd392 90940 SK_b_rd393 90940 SK_b_rd394 1300 SK_b_rd395 1300 SK_b_rd396 1300 SK_b_rd397 1300 SK_b_rd398 1300 SK_b_rd399 1300 SK_b_rd400 1310 SK_b_rd401 1310 SK_b_rd402 1310 SK_b_rd403 1320 SK_b_rd404 910 SK_b_rd405 910 SK_b_rd406 910 SK_b_rd407 910 SK_b_rd408 920 SK_b_rd409 930 SK_b_rd410 936 SK_b_rd411 930 SK_b_rd412 930 SK_b_rd413 940 SK_b_rd414 950 SK_b_rd415 2069 SK_b_rd416 95610 SK_b_rd417 91230 SK_b_rd418 91230 SK_b_rd419 91230 SK_b_rd420 91230 SK_b_rd421 91230 SK_b_rd422 91230 SK_b_rd423 1330 SK_b_rd424 1330 SK_b_rd425 1330 SK_b_rd426 5570 SK_b_rd427 5570 SK_b_rd428 5570 SK_b_rd429 5570 SK_b_rd430 5580 SK_b_rd431 1789 SK_b_rd432 81330 SK_b_rd433 81330 SK_b_rd434 81330 SK_b_rd435 81340 SK_b_rd436 81340 SK_b_rd437 81340 SK_b_rd438 81340 SK_b_rd439 81350 SK_b_rd440 81350 SK_b_rd441 81350 SK_b_rd442 81360 SK_b_rd443 81360 SK_b_rd444 81360 SK_b_rd445 Major railways National identification number Unique identification number ŽSR-110 SK_a_rl1 ŽSR-110 SK_a_rl2 ŽSR-120 SK_a_rl3 ŽSR-120 SK_a_rl4 ŽSR-130 SK_a_rl5 ŽSR-130 SK_a_rl6 ŽSR-120 SK_a_rl7 ŽSR-127 SK_a_rl8 ŽSR-180 SK_a_rl9 ŽSR-180 SK_a_rl10 ŽSR-180 SK_a_rl11 ŽSR-180 SK_a_rl12 ŽSR-180 SK_a_rl13 ŽSR-180 SK_a_rl14 ŽSR-180 SK_a_rl15 ŽSR-190 SK_a_rl16 ( *1 ) Language of the case: Slovak.