# C_2021028EN.01005302.xml

| 25.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 28/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/53

---

Action brought on 30 October 2020 — SJ v Commission

(Case T-659/20)

(2021/C 28/83)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: SJ AB (Stockholm, Sweden) (represented by: J. Karlsson and M. Johansson, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1193 of 2 July 2020 on the applicability of Article 34 of Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council to railway passenger transport in Sweden (1) in so far as it declares that the Utilities Directive shall continue to apply to procurement contracts intended to enable activities related to the provision of commercial railway passenger services in Sweden; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1193 of 2 July 2020 on the applicability of Article 34 of Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council to railway passenger transport in Sweden (1) in so far as it declares that the Utilities Directive shall continue to apply to procurement contracts intended to enable activities related to the provision of commercial railway passenger services in Sweden;

| — | in the alternative, in so far as partial annulment is not, according to the Court, admissible or possible to annul the Decision in its entirety; and, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, in so far as partial annulment is not, according to the Court, admissible or possible to annul the Decision in its entirety; and,

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law by not declaring the Utilities Directive inapplicable to procurement contracts intended to enable the provision of commercial railway passenger services on the Gothenburg — Malmö route. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law by not declaring the Utilities Directive inapplicable to procurement contracts intended to enable the provision of commercial railway passenger services on the Gothenburg — Malmö route.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission misinterpreted and misapplied the criteria for inapplicability of the Utilities Directive. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission misinterpreted and misapplied the criteria for inapplicability of the Utilities Directive.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in the delineation of the relevant market(-s). |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in the delineation of the relevant market(-s).

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in concluding that the provision of railway passenger services on the Stockholm-Gothenburg route is not directly exposed to competition. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in concluding that the provision of railway passenger services on the Stockholm-Gothenburg route is not directly exposed to competition.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment by failing to conclude that the entire Swedish market is exposed to competition within the meaning of Article 34 of the Utilities Directive. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment by failing to conclude that the entire Swedish market is exposed to competition within the meaning of Article 34 of the Utilities Directive.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging an infringement of essential procedural requirements. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging an infringement of essential procedural requirements.

---

(1)  OJ 2020 L 262, p. 18

---