- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-60/20: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa — Latvia) — ‘Latvijas Dzelzceļš’ VAS v Valsts dzelzceļa administrācija (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rail transport — Directive 2012/34/EU — Single European railway area — Article 13(2) and (6) — Access to service facilities and to rail-related services — Regulation (EU) 2017/2177 — Reconversion of facilities — Powers of the regulatory body)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62020CA0060
62020CA0060
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
30.8.2021
Official Journal of the European Union
C 349/9
(Case C-60/20) (1)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Rail transport - Directive 2012/34/EU - Single European railway area - Article 13(2) and (6) - Access to service facilities and to rail-related services - Regulation (EU) 2017/2177 - Reconversion of facilities - Powers of the regulatory body)
(2021/C 349/11)
Language of the case: Latvian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: ‘Latvijas Dzelzceļš’ VAS
Defendant: Valsts dzelzceļa administrācija
intervener: ‘Baltijas Ekspresis’ AS
Operative part of the judgment
1.Article 13(2) and (6) of Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 establishing a single European railway area must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to supply all railway undertakings with non-discriminatory access to service facilities, within the meaning of Article 3(11) of that directive, referred to in point 2 of Annex II thereto, cannot be imposed on the owners of such facilities who are not operators of those facilities;
2.Article 13(6) of Directive 2012/34 must be interpreted as not applying to a situation in which the owner of a building housing a service facility, within the meaning of Article 3(11) of that directive, which is in use, intends to terminate a lease agreement relating to that building in order to reallocate the latter to its own use.
(1) OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.