EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case C-221/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 1 (Czech Republic) lodged on 26 March 2021 — Správa železnic, státní organizace v České dráhy a.s. and Others

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62021CN0221

62021CN0221

March 26, 2021
With Google you find a lot.
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

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242/11

(Case C-221/21)

(2021/C 242/14)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Správa železnic, státní organizace

Defendants: České dráhy a.s.,

PKP CARGO INTERNATIONAL, a.s.,

PDV RAILWAY a.s.,

KŽC Doprava, s.r.o.

Questions referred

1.Does national regulation in Part Five of Zákon č. 99/1963 Sb., občanský soudní řád (Law 99/1963, Code of Civil Procedure, as amended) (‘the Code of Civil Procedure’ or ‘CCP’) meet the requirements for judicial review of a decision of a regulatory body, pursuant to Article 56(10) of Directive 2012/34/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 establishing a single European railway area (‘Directive 2012/34’)?

2.If the response to the first question is in the affirmative, can Article 56(10) of Directive 2012/34 be interpreted such that judicial review of a decision of a regulatory body may be concluded by court settlement pursuant to Paragraph 99 CCP?

3.If the response to the first question is in the affirmative, do the requirements of the establishment of a single national regulatory body for the railway sector, pursuant to Article 55(1) of Directive 2012/34; of the functions of a regulatory body pursuant to Article 56(2), (6), (11), and (12) thereof; and of cooperation of regulatory bodies pursuant to Article 57(2) thereof, admit the possibility that the decisions of a regulatory body on the merits of the case can be substituted by judgments of individual courts of general jurisdiction, which are not bound by the regulatory body’s findings of fact?

Language of the case: Czech

(1) OJ 2012 L 343, p. 32.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia