# C_2021242EN.01001101.xml

| 21.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 242/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242/11

---

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

(Case C-221/21)

(2021/C 242/14)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Obvodní soud pro Prahu 1

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’)? |
| --- | --- |

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? |
| --- | --- |

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? |
| --- | --- |

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?

---

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

---