# C_2018052EN.01004001.xml

| 12.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/40

---

Action brought on 14 December 2017 — Lietuvos geležinkeliai v Commission

(Case T-814/17)

(2018/C 052/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Lietuvos geležinkeliai AB (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented by: W. Deselaers, K. Apel, P. Kirst, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul, in whole or in part, Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Commission Decision C(2017) 6544 final of 2 October 2017 relating to proceedings under Article 102 TFEU in Case AT.39813 — Baltic Rail; and/or |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, in whole or in part, Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Commission Decision C(2017) 6544 final of 2 October 2017 relating to proceedings under Article 102 TFEU in Case AT.39813 — Baltic Rail; and/or

| — | reduce the fines imposed on the applicant by Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2017) 6544 final dated 2 October 2017; and |
| --- | --- |

—

reduce the fines imposed on the applicant by Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2017) 6544 final dated 2 October 2017; and

| — | 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 the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 102 TFEU, a manifest error of law by using the wrong legal test to evaluate the alleged abuse. According to the applicant, there could be an abuse only if access to the Track were essential or indispensable for competitors to compete on the downstream market (which is not the case). |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 102 TFEU, a manifest error of law by using the wrong legal test to evaluate the alleged abuse. According to the applicant, there could be an abuse only if access to the Track were essential or indispensable for competitors to compete on the downstream market (which is not the case).

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 102 TFEU and manifest errors of law and assessment. The applicant puts forward that even under the (wrong) legal test applied by the Commission, the removal of the rail track connecting Mažeikiai in north-western Lithuania with the Latvian border (the ‘Track’) as non-essential facility did not constitute an abuse of a dominant position in the legal and factual circumstances of the present case. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 102 TFEU and manifest errors of law and assessment. The applicant puts forward that even under the (wrong) legal test applied by the Commission, the removal of the rail track connecting Mažeikiai in north-western Lithuania with the Latvian border (the ‘Track’) as non-essential facility did not constitute an abuse of a dominant position in the legal and factual circumstances of the present case.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 296 TFEU and Article 2 of Regulation 1/2003 to the extent that, according to the applicant, there is insufficient evidence and failure to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 296 TFEU and Article 2 of Regulation 1/2003 to the extent that, according to the applicant, there is insufficient evidence and failure to state reasons.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 23.3 of Regulation 1/2003, and manifest errors of law and of assessment in setting the amount of the fine. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 23.3 of Regulation 1/2003, and manifest errors of law and of assessment in setting the amount of the fine.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 7 of Regulation 1/2003, manifest errors of law and assessment in ordering, in fact, a disproportionate remedy (i.e. the reconstruction of the Track). |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 7 of Regulation 1/2003, manifest errors of law and assessment in ordering, in fact, a disproportionate remedy (i.e. the reconstruction of the Track).

---