Reimbursement of train driver training costs in the Polish legal order in the interpretation of Article 24 of Directive 2007/59/EC

Pursuant to Article 24(1) of Directive 2007/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the certification of train drivers operating locomotives and trains on the railway system in the Community, Member States shall ensure the adoption of necessary measures to prevent another railway undertaking or infrastructure manager from benefiting from the investments made by a railway undertaking or infrastructure manager in the training of a train driver, in cases where the driver voluntarily leaves to join the other railway undertaking or infrastructure manager. The legal interest protected by the rule derived from Article 24(1) of the Directive is the financial interest of the railway undertaking or infrastructure manager in the event of a trained candidate’s voluntary resignation and move to a competitor. The Polish legislator implemented Article 24(1) of Directive 2007/59 in Article 22c(1) of the Railway Transport Act, which provides, that a railway undertaking or infrastructure manager may enter into an agreement with a train driver candidate, obliging the candidate to reimburse part or all of the training costs if the employment contract or other legal relationship binding the candidate with the railway undertaking or infrastructure manager is terminated before a specified date for reasons attributable to the candidate. This provision therefore defines the basis for claiming reimbursement of training costs in a significantly broader manner. A literal interpretation of this provision, detached from Directive 2007/59, would justify the reimbursement of training costs to the railway undertaking or infrastructure manager in almost every case where the candidate fails to complete the training, regardless of the reason. However, such a literal interpretation of Article 22c(1) of the Railway Transport Act leads to a violation of EU law. The authors of the article point out, firstly, the contradiction with the objective of Directive 2007/59, which was to protect railway undertakings and infrastructure managers only in cases where a trained candidate joins a competing entity. The Polish legislator, meanwhile, has provided much broader financial protection to the above-mentioned entities— protection that does not arise from the wording or, more importantly, the objective of Directive 2007/59. At the same time, such an implementation must be assessed as creating a potential obstacle to the free movement of workers. The possibility of burdening a train driver candidate with the obligation to reimburse training costs (in practice, several tens of thousands of zlotys) is undoubtedly a significant factor in the decision to choose a Polish railway undertaking or infrastructure manager as an employer. For comparison, German regulations did not introduce any new liability regime for reimbursement of costs, referring only to the content of existing legal provisions. The general grounds for employee liability are based on the principle of fault, making the German system of liability for training costs significantly more favorable. From this perspective, the implementation of Article 24(1) of Directive 2007/59 must be assessed as a violation of EU law. Consequently, the question arises as to what measures a national court should apply in a case concerning the reimbursement of training costs. The authors of this article attempt to answer this question in light of an in-depth analysis of the interpretation of the provisions of Directive 2007/59 and the Polish Railway Transport Act.

Bibliografia/References

Bundestag Niemiec. (1896). Das Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (BGB) (w wersji z 2002 r., BGBl. I S. 42, ber. S. 2909, 2003 S. 738, ze zm.).

Bundestag Niemiec. (2005). Das Berufsbildungsgesetzes (BGBl. I S. 931, ze zm.).

Bundestag Niemiec. (2011). Uzasadnienie rozporządzenia Fünfte Verordnung zum Erlass und zur Änderung eisenbahnrechtlicher Vorschriften (Druk nr 121/11). https://dip.bundestag.de/drucksache/f%C3%BCnfte-verordnung-zum-erlass-und-zur-%C3%A4nderung-eisenbahnrechtlicher-vorschriften/31562

Domańska, M., Miąsik, D., & Szwarc, M. (2020). The application of EU law by Polish courts. General remarks on 15 years of experience. Contemporary Central & East European Law, 1(133), 21–32. https://doi.org/10.37232/cceel.2019.02

Gruber-Risak, M., & Dullinger, T. (2018). The concept of 'worker' in EU law: Status quo and potential for change. ETUI Research Paper – Report 140.

Grzeszczak, R. (2014). Die Arbeitnehmerfreizügigkeit und ihre Einschränkungen am Beispiel Polens und Deutschlands. W: D. Jajeśniak-Quast, L. Kiel & M. Kłodnicki (Red.), Die Arbeitnehmerfreizügigkeit und ihre Einschränkungen am Beispiel Polens und Deutschlands. Swoboda przepływu pracowników i jej ograniczenia na przykładzie Polski i Niemiec (s. XX–XX). Berlin.

Hajn, Z. (2006). Specyficzne problemy stosowania europejskiego prawa pracy. Europejski Przegląd Sądowy, 8.

Merten, F. (2024). BGB – Kommentar, BGB § 619a BGB – Beweislast bei Haftung des Arbeitnehmers (H. Prütting, G. Wegen & G. Weinreich, Red.). München.

Miąsik, D. (2008). Sprawa wspólnotowa przed sądem krajowym. Europejski Przegląd Sądowy, 9.

Miąsik, D. (2010). Sprawa unijna. W: A. Wróbel (Red.), Stosowanie prawa Unii Europejskiej przez sądy (s. XX–XX). Warszawa.

Ziembiński, Z. (1974). Metodologiczne zagadnienia prawoznawstwa. Warszawa.

Orzecznictwo Trybunału Sprawiedliwości/ Jurisprudence of the Court of Justice

Wyrok TS z 21 czerwca 2007 r. w sprawach połączonych od C-231/06 do C-233/06, Yonkman, EU:C:2007:373

Wyrok TS z 15 grudnia 1995 r. w sprawie C-415/93, Bosman, EU:C:1995:463.

Wyrok TS z 7 marca 1991 r. w sprawie C-10/90, Masgio, Rec. ECLI:EU:C:2011:606, pkt 18 i 19.

Wyrok TS z 22 października 1987 r. w sprawie C-314/85, Foto-Frost, ECLI:EU:C:1987:452. Wyrok TS z 19 marca 1964 r. w sprawie C-75/63 Hoekstra, EU:C:1964:19)