- 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: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa lodged on 5 February 2020 — VAS ‘Latvijas dzelzceļš’ v Valsts dzelzceļa administrācija
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62020CN0060
62020CN0060
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
11.5.2020
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 161/31
(Case C-60/20)
(2020/C 161/41)
Language of the case: Latvian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: VAS ‘Latvijas dzelzceļš’
Defendant: Valsts dzelzceļa administrācija
Questions referred
1.Can Article 13(2) and (6) of Directive 2012/34 (Article 15(5) and (6) of Regulation 2017/2177) apply in such a manner that the regulatory body can impose on the owner of an infrastructure, who is not the owner of the service facility, the obligation to ensure access to the services?
2.Must Article 13(6) of Directive 2012/34 (Article 15(5) and (6) of Regulation 2017/2177) be interpreted as meaning that it permits the owner of a building to end a lease agreement and reconvert a service facility?
3.Must Article 13(6) of Directive 2012/34 (Article 15(5) and (6) of Regulation 2017/2177) be interpreted as requiring the regulatory body to ascertain only whether the operator of the service facility (in the present case, the owner of the service facility) has in fact decided to reconvert that facility?
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).
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2177 of 22 November 2017 on access to service facilities and rail-related services (OJ 2017 L 307, p. 1).
* * *