- 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-671/21, ‘Gargždų geležinkelis’: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 September 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — ‘Gargždų geležinkelis’ UAB (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Single European railway area — Directive 2012/34/EU — Allocation of railway infrastructure capacity — Article 45 — Scheduling — Article 46 — Coordination process — Article 47 — Congested infrastructure — Prioritisation of specific services — Priority criteria — National legislation providing for priority rules linked to the intensity of the use of the infrastructure)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62021CA0671
62021CA0671
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
Official Journal of the European Union
Series C
C/2023/725
(Case C-671/21, (1) ‘Gargždų geležinkelis’)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Single European railway area - Directive 2012/34/EU - Allocation of railway infrastructure capacity - Article 45 - Scheduling - Article 46 - Coordination process - Article 47 - Congested infrastructure - Prioritisation of specific services - Priority criteria - National legislation providing for priority rules linked to the intensity of the use of the infrastructure)
(C/2023/725)
Language of the case: Lithuanian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: ‘Gargždų geležinkelis’ UAB
other parties to the proceedings: Lietuvos transporto saugos administracija, Lietuvos Respublikos ryšių reguliavimo tarnyba, ‘LTG Infra’ AB
Operative part of the judgment
1.Articles 45 and 46 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, within the scheduling process and the coordination process referred to in those articles, the infrastructure manager:
—is not required to ascertain whether several applicants have submitted competing requests for capacity for the carriage of the same freight;
—may apply certain criteria, including criteria that involve some form of prioritisation, provided that their application allows infrastructure capacity to be allocated in a fair and non-discriminatory manner and in accordance with EU law;
—must attempt actively to seek a satisfactory solution with applicants in the event of conflicts.
2.Article 47(3) and (4) of Directive 2012/34
must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, for the purpose of allocating infrastructure capacity in the event of congested infrastructure, provides for the application of a priority criterion based on the planned use of that capacity, unless that criterion has safeguards to ensure that it is not applied to the detriment of new entrants.
(1)
Language of the case: Lithuanian
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/725/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
JUDGMENT OF 6. 3. 2025 – CASE C-41/24 WALTHAM ABBEY RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION
*
Language of the case: Lithuanian
ECLI:EU:C:2025:140