# C_2013344EN.01006701.xml

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/67

---

Action brought on 2 October 2013 — Netherlands v Commission

(Case T-542/13)

2013/C 344/123

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: J. Langer and M. Bulterman, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul Commission Decision C(2013) 4474 final of 18 July 2013 on the non-application of certain provisions of the Decree of the Kingdom of the Netherlands of 8 June 2012 establishing detailed rules with regard to the liberalisation of international rail passenger transport; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision C(2013) 4474 final of 18 July 2013 on the non-application of certain provisions of the Decree of the Kingdom of the Netherlands of 8 June 2012 establishing detailed rules with regard to the liberalisation of international rail passenger transport;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission wrongly based the contested decision on Article 61 of Directive 2012/34/EU. (1) The applicant argues that, if the Commission is not in agreement with the manner in which the Netherlands legislature implements the Directive, it may make use of Article 258 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission wrongly based the contested decision on Article 61 of Directive 2012/34/EU. (1) The applicant argues that, if the Commission is not in agreement with the manner in which the Netherlands legislature implements the Directive, it may make use of Article 258 TFEU.

1

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of the rights of the defence, the principle of legitimate expectations and the principle of loyal cooperation, following expiry of the ‘EU Pilot’, (2) in declaring Netherlands legislation inapplicable by virtue of Article 61 of Directive 2012/34/EU. The applicant argues that it was reasonably entitled to assume, when answering the Commission’s questions under ‘EU Pilot’, that the shared information would be used by the Commission exclusively in (the event of) infringement proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of the rights of the defence, the principle of legitimate expectations and the principle of loyal cooperation, following expiry of the ‘EU Pilot’, (2) in declaring Netherlands legislation inapplicable by virtue of Article 61 of Directive 2012/34/EU. The applicant argues that it was reasonably entitled to assume, when answering the Commission’s questions under ‘EU Pilot’, that the shared information would be used by the Commission exclusively in (the event of) infringement proceedings.

2

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging defective grounds and an incorrect interpretation of Directive 2012/34/EU in that it was held that the criteria for determining ‘the principal purpose of the service’, within the meaning of Article 10(3) of the Directive, may not be determined in advance, and in that it was held that it is for the regulatory body to set out the criteria for determining ‘economic equilibrium’ within the meaning of Article 11(2). |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging defective grounds and an incorrect interpretation of Directive 2012/34/EU in that it was held that the criteria for determining ‘the principal purpose of the service’, within the meaning of Article 10(3) of the Directive, may not be determined in advance, and in that it was held that it is for the regulatory body to set out the criteria for determining ‘economic equilibrium’ within the meaning of Article 11(2).

---

(1)  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).

1

(2)  See the communication of the Commission ‘A Europe of Results — Applying Community Law’ (COM(2007) 502 final).

2

---