Short answer
EU law does not require every user to receive identical capacity or pay the same number. It requires differences to follow the sector's governing rules and, generally, to rest on published, relevant, objective, transparent, proportionate and non-discriminatory criteria.
Rail infrastructure managers must provide equitable access, publish a network statement, allocate scarce capacity through the applicable timetable procedure and apply lawful charging principles. Directive 2012/34 remains central, while Regulation 2026/1184 introduces a new capacity framework with staged application. Coordinated airports need an independent slot coordinator under Regulation 95/93, while airport charges under Directive 2009/12 require consultation, transparency, non-discrimination and independent supervision. Port-service access may be limited only on specified grounds under Regulation 2017/352, with transparent selection. Public electric charging and hydrogen refuelling under Regulation 2023/1804 must support ad hoc access and transparent, reasonable, comparable and non-discriminatory pricing.
A capacity shortage permits prioritisation, not private preference. A manager should define the legal service and user class, publish the allocation and fee method, separate conflicted decision-makers, document capacity or cost evidence, and preserve review by the competent regulator.
Non-discrimination allows justified distinctions
The recurring test is comparative. Identify users in a comparable situation, the difference in access or price, the objective pursued and whether the criterion is suitable and proportionate. Volume, peak demand, service quality, environmental performance or genuine cost differences may justify differentiation where the sectoral instrument permits it. Ownership, nationality, affiliation or an unpublished negotiated preference usually cannot.
The infrastructure manager should be able to reproduce the result from its published method. Discretion is safer when bounded by measurable criteria, conflict controls, reasons and appeal. Competition law, free-movement rules, State-aid law and public-procurement duties may apply alongside the sector rules, especially where the manager is publicly controlled or dominant.
Rail access, train paths and charges
grants qualifying railway undertakings access to rail infrastructure and service facilities on equitable, transparent and non-discriminatory terms. Essential functions—principally decisions on train-path allocation and infrastructure charging—must be protected from influence by railway operators. Vertically integrated structures require independence safeguards, separate accounts and conflict controls.
has applied since 12 June 2026 and establishes the replacement capacity-management framework. Most of its substantive capacity-planning and allocation rules apply only to activities and tasks for working timetables entering into force on or after 14 December 2030. For earlier timetables, the corresponding capacity provisions in Directive 2012/34 continue to apply. Some coordination, institutional, digital and Commission-powers provisions start earlier, so the timetable date and the specific provision both matter.
“Infrastructure managers shall supply to all railway undertakings, in a non-discriminatory manner, the minimum access package.” —
The network statement must publish the infrastructure available and the rules, deadlines, criteria and procedures for access, charges and capacity. Applicants request train paths through the statutory timetable. The manager must coordinate conflicting requests and, for congested infrastructure, conduct capacity analysis and develop an enhancement plan. Priority criteria must reflect the Directive, including the importance of services to society, while protecting freight and international traffic appropriately.
Charges for the minimum access package are generally based on cost directly incurred by train operation, subject to permitted mark-ups, scarcity or environmental charging and other detailed rules. Comparable operators cannot be selectively discounted outside the published scheme. The regulatory body hears access, capacity and charging complaints and can require changes.
In CTL Logistics, , the Court rejected case-by-case ordinary-court adjustment of rail charges independently of the specialist regulator. The point is institutional as well as substantive: uniform regulatory oversight protects the network-wide charging system.
Airport slots are not airport charges
At a coordinated airport, governs scarce take-off and landing slots. The coordinator must be functionally independent and act neutrally, transparently and without discrimination. Historic precedence can preserve a series of slots that meets the use rule; remaining slots enter the pool, with statutory treatment for new entrants. Capacity must be determined using recognised methods and consultation.
Slot scarcity does not permit the airport or coordinator to favour an affiliated airline. Allocation decisions, waiting-list order, slot exchanges, withdrawals and enforcement of misuse need traceable reasons under the Regulation. Competition rules remain relevant where coordination or exchanges restrict rivalry.
separately governs airport charges at airports within its scope. The managing body must consult users on the charging system and level, disclose the information needed to understand costs and proposed investments, justify changes and allow recourse to an independent supervisory authority. Differentiation is possible for services, terminals or public-interest reasons where objective, transparent criteria apply.
In Deutsche Lufthansa, , individually negotiated charges could not depart from the system approved by the independent authority. Airport users also needed an effective route to challenge the approval decision.
Ports may limit providers only for statutory reasons
covers specified port services at TEN-T maritime ports. A port may impose minimum requirements concerning qualifications, equipment, safety, environmental compliance and related matters only where they are transparent, objective, non-discriminatory, proportionate and relevant.
The number of providers may be limited for reasons such as land or waterside scarcity, traffic characteristics, safety, environmental sustainability or public-service obligations. If limitation triggers selection, the procedure must be open, impartial, transparent and non-discriminatory. Conflicts require particular care where the managing body itself provides services.
Port infrastructure charges must be transparent and non-discriminatory. Commercial confidentiality does not remove consultation and information duties. Environmental or congestion differentiation may be lawful if the method is published, coherent and objectively justified.
Public charging networks require open, intelligible use
, the Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Regulation, requires users to be able to recharge or refuel ad hoc at publicly accessible points without a prior service contract. Payment and price-display requirements vary by infrastructure type and output, but the user must know the applicable price before starting.
“Prices charged by operators of publicly accessible recharging points shall be reasonable, easily and clearly comparable, transparent and non-discriminatory.” —
Operators may differentiate price only where proportionate and objectively justified. They may not discriminate between end users and mobility service providers or among providers. Mobility-service fees must also be reasonable, transparent and non-discriminatory, and cross-border e-roaming cannot attract an extra charge. Operators must provide required static and dynamic data through the prescribed channels.
Access to land or grid capacity for new charging operators may also engage electricity-market, concession, procurement, State-aid and competition rules. A municipal exclusivity arrangement cannot be assessed only under the user-facing price provision.
A defensible allocation record
Before making a decision, record the governing instrument, decision-maker's independence, available capacity, applicants, comparable-user analysis, published criterion, scoring, fee calculation, conflicts, consultation and review route. Where capacity is genuinely scarce, explain why expansion, coordination or a less restrictive allocation was unavailable.
Users should request the network statement, slot or selection criteria, charge consultation record, cost basis and regulator decision. Urgent interim review can matter because a missed timetable, season or concession opportunity may be impossible to repair with damages alone.
Conclusion
Transport infrastructure may distinguish among users when the applicable EU regime authorises the distinction and the decision follows objective, transparent, proportionate and non-discriminatory rules. Scarcity and different costs can justify different outcomes; affiliation and opaque bargaining cannot. Publication, independence, evidence and effective regulatory review are the practical safeguards shared across rail, airports, ports and public charging.
Sources
This article provides general legal information, not advice for a specific matter. Laws, facts and procedural deadlines may change the result. Follow the linked primary sources and obtain local advice before acting.