EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/23

(Case C-671/21)

(2022/C 84/30)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: ‘Gargždų geležinkelis’ UAB

Other parties to the proceedings: Lietuvos transporto saugos administracija

Lietuvos Respublikos ryšių reguliavimo tarnyba

‘LTG Infra’ AB

Questions referred

1.Must the first and second sentences of Article 47(4) of Directive 2012/34/EU (1) be interpreted as unambiguously prohibiting the establishment of a national legal regulation which provides that, in the event of congested infrastructure, the intensity of the use of railway infrastructure can be taken into account at the time of capacity allocation? Does it have a bearing on this assessment whether the railway infrastructure utilisation rate is linked to the actual utilisation of that infrastructure in the past or to the planned utilisation during the period for which the relevant timetable is in force? Do the provisions of Articles 45 and 46 of Directive 2012/34/EU, which confer a broad discretion on the public infrastructure manager or on the entity making decisions on the capacity to coordinate the requested capacity, and the implementation of those provisions in national law have any significance for that assessment? Does the fact that infrastructure is identified as congested in a particular case due to the capacity applied for by two or more railway undertakings in respect of the carriage of the same freight have any significance for that assessment?

2.Does the provision of Article 45(2) of Directive 2012/34/EU that ‘the infrastructure manager may give priority to specific services within the scheduling and coordination process but only as set out in Articles 47 and 49’ mean that the infrastructure manager may also apply a national priority rule in cases where infrastructure is not identified as congested? To what extent (on the basis of which criteria) must the infrastructure manager, prior to identifying infrastructure as congested, coordinate the requested train paths and consult with applicants on the basis of the first sentence of Article 47[(1)] of Directive 2012/34/EU? Should that consultation with applicants cover the assessment as to whether two or more applicants have submitted competing requests for the carriage of the same freight (goods)?

Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 establishing a single European railway area (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 32).

* * *

Language of the case: Lithuanian

* * *