Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2021:147
Date: 2021-02-25
Language of the case: Latvian
Subject matter: Transport
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Latvia

Translation C-60/20 — 1 
Case C-60/20 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
5 February 2020 
Referring court: 
Administratīvā apgabaltiesa (Regional Administrative Court) 
(Latvia) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
30 January 2020 
Appellant: 
VAS ‘Latvijas Dzelzceļš’  
Respondent: 
Valsts dzelzceļa administrācija (National Railway Administration) 
  
THE ADMINISTRATĪVĀ APGABALTIESA  
(Regional Administrative Court) 
[…] 
ORDER 
[…]       30 January 2020 
[…] [composition of the court] 
[…] 
examined at a public hearing the appeal lodged by VAS ‘Latvijas Dzelzceļš’ 
against the judgment of the Administratīvā rajona tiesa (District Administrative 
Court) of 25 January 2019 in the administrative-law proceedings instituted by way 
of the action for annulment brought by VAS ‘Latvijas Dzelzceļš’ against the 
decision of the Valsts dzelzceļa administrācija (National Railway Administration; 
[‘the Administration’]) […] of 5 December 2017[, and] 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 30.1.2020 — CASE C-60/20 
 
2  
hereby states 
Factual background 
[1] The appellant, VAS ‘Latvijas Dzelzceļš’, has, since 2002, leased the 
locomotive depot building in Ventspils […], which it owns (‘the Ventspils depot 
building’), to a third party, AS ‘Baltijas Ekspresis’. 
On 20 June 2016, the appellant renewed with AS ‘Baltijas Ekspresis’ the non-
residential lease agreement (‘the lease agreement’) relating to the leasing of the 
non-residential property comprising the Ventspils depot building and the 
corresponding ground areas. 
In 2017, the appellant, as the public railway infrastructure manager, needed to use 
those facilities for its own requirements (storage of rolling stock for infrastructure 
maintenance). Consequently, by letter of 5 September 2017 […], the appellant 
gave AS ‘Baltijas Ekspresis’ notice of termination of the lease agreement. 
On 18 September 2017, AS ‘Baltijas Ekspresis’ filed with the Administration a 
complaint of infringement of competition and discrimination. According to the 
complaint, the discretion enjoyed by the appellant had given rise to discrimination 
against AS ‘Baltijas Ekspresis’ in its capacity as transport undertaking and service 
facility operator, in particular by impeding the effective and rational operation of, 
and access to, services. AS ‘Baltijas Ekspresis’ has been active on the rail freight 
market for 20 years. AS ‘Baltijas Ekspresis’ states that it uses the Ventspils depot 
premises as a service facility within the meaning of Article 1, point 26, of the 
Dzelzceļa likums (Law on Railways). On the leased premises, AS ‘Baltijas 
Ekspresis’ performs a self-supply of services, that is to say technical locomotive 
maintenance, maintenance of the thermal behaviour of locomotives on the storage 
sidings between two assignments, and organisation of standby sand and industrial-
use water services to meet needs connected with the preparation and fitting of 
locomotives, those being regarded as services having to be provided by a service 
facility operator. 
In the light of the foregoing considerations, the complaint raised by AS ‘Baltijas 
Ekspresis’ asked the Administration to put an end to the appellant’s behaviour, 
which was liable to jeopardise the continuity of the activities carried out at the 
service facility. 
After examining that complaint, the Administration, by decision […] of 
5 December 2017 (‘the contested decision’), ordered the appellant to guarantee 
access to the Ventspils depot building in its capacity as a service facility and to the 
services supplied there, as provided for in Article 12.1(2), points 5 and 6, of the 
Law on Railways (access to maintenance and other technical facilities, including 
facilities for washing and cleaning railway rolling stock). 
LATVIJAS DZELZCEĻŠ 
 
3 
[2] That decision is based on a factual assessment to the effect that the Ventspils 
depot building is technically suitable for the repair and technical maintenance of 
locomotives. This is considered sufficient to support the view that the Ventspils 
depot building is a service facility, since Article 1, point 26, of the Law on 
Railways defines ‘service facility’ as the ground area, building and equipment, 
which has been specially arranged, as a whole or in part, to allow the supply of 
one or more of the services referred to in that law. 
Furthermore, a self-supply of services, as defined in Article 3(8) of European 
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2177 of 22 November 2017 on 
access to service facilities and rail-related services (‘Regulation 2017/2177’), must 
also be regarded as a provision of services. According to the contested decision, it 
makes no difference that AS ‘Baltijas Ekspresis’ performs activities only for itself 
on the leased premises. This does not detract from the fact that a self-supply of 
services takes place on those premises. Given that AS ‘Baltijas Ekspresis’ 
performs a self-supply of services in the Ventspils depot building, the interruption 
of activities at that service facility must be analysed by reference to the rules 
limiting the right of a service provider to close a service facility. 
Under Article 12.2(8) of the Law on Railways, access to the service facility and to 
the services supplied there must be guaranteed for at least two years after the 
facility has ceased to be used. Closure of the service facility may not take place 
until after the aforementioned two-year period has expired. Consequently, the 
appellant is subject to the obligation to guarantee access to the Ventspils depot 
building in its capacity as a service facility and to the obligation to guarantee 
access to the services supplied on those premises. 
[3] The appellant brought before the Administratīvā rajona tiesa (District 
Administrative Court) an action seeking to have the contested decision annulled. 
The application stated that AS ‘Baltijas Ekspresis’ had not rented the premises at 
the Ventspils depot building as a service facility. Furthermore, AS ‘Baltijas 
Ekspresis’ was not registered as a service facility operator either at the time when 
the lease agreement was concluded or at the time when notice was given of the 
termination of that agreement. It stated that the Administration had misinterpreted 
the concepts of ‘service facility’ and ‘self-supply of services’ and misapplied 
Article 12.2(7) and (8) of the Law on Railways. 
The appellant maintained that the concept of ‘service facility’ within the meaning 
of Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
21 November 2012 establishing a single European railway area includes the place 
where services are supplied to a number of railway undertakings. The 
classification of service facility cannot be attached to any place where certain 
economic activities are carried on. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 30.1.2020 — CASE C-60/20 
 
4  
The appellant argued that the operations performed by AS ‘Baltijas Ekspresis’, 
which the Administration classifies as a self-supply of services, could not be 
regarded as confirming the existence of a provision of services. 
Article 3(8) of Regulation 2017/2177 contains a definition of the concept of ‘self-
supply of services’. The wording of that provision indicates that this is a situation 
where a railway undertaking asks to use the premises of a self-supply of services 
that is under the control of another undertaking. Where, on the other hand, an 
undertaking carries out maintenance activities on railway infrastructure property 
which it owns or manages, the performance of those activities cannot be regarded 
as a self-supply of services. Given that the Administration misused the concepts of 
service facility and self-supply of services, the resulting conclusion ― that it is 
appropriate to apply the provisions limiting closure of the service facility ― is 
also unfounded. 
[According to the appellant], the Administration is wrong to take the view that it 
is empowered to oblige the appellant to guarantee access to services at the facility 
concerned. The appellant has not provided services in the Ventspils depot building 
for a long time, as the property is leased to AS ‘Baltijas Ekspresis’. Consequently, 
the Administration cannot impose on the appellant obligations that are incumbent 
on a service facility operator. 
[4] By judgment of 25 January 2019, the Administratīvā rajona tiesa (District 
Administrative Court) dismissed the appellant’s action. 
In its judgment, that court stated that the appellant had to be regarded as a service 
facility operator, since it was responsible for managing [the facility in question]. It 
also held that the Ventspils depot building was suitable for providing maintenance 
services. Consequently, that court came to the conclusion that the Administration 
had correctly applied Article 12.2(8) of the Law on Railways in imposing on the 
appellant the obligation to guarantee access to the service facility and to the 
services supplied there. 
[5] The appellant lodged an appeal against the judgment at first instance. 
On appeal, the appellant argues that the court of first instance wrongly concluded 
that the appellant was a service facility operator. It states that that court was 
mistaken in its view that the property was owned by the network operator. 
Consequently, that court also erred in concluding that the appellant was subject to 
the obligations laid down in Article 12.1(2) of the Law on Railways.  
It submits that the court of first instance wrongly concluded that the Ventspils 
depot building had to be regarded as a service facility simply because services can 
be supplied there. It takes the view that it must be considered relevant that the 
premises were not leased as a service facility and that the Ventspils depot building 
was not registered as a service facility in the network statement. 
LATVIJAS DZELZCEĻŠ 
 
5 
It goes on to say that the Administration and the court of first instance also erred 
in stating that AS ‘Baltijas Ekspresis’ performs a self-supply of services on the 
leased premises. 
The appellant attached to the appeal a request that a request for a preliminary 
ruling be made to the Court of Justice of the European Union. The appellant asked 
that a reference be made for a preliminary ruling on how to interpret the concepts 
of ‘service facility’, ‘service facility operator’ and ‘self-supply of services’ as 
defined in Directive 2012/34. The appellant also asked for clarification as to 
whether the obligation imposed on the service facility operator in Article 13(2) of 
Directive 2012/34 to guarantee access to the service facility may be imposed on a 
person who does not provide service facility services. The appellant further 
submits that the contested decision limits the opportunities for using its property 
and it is sustaining losses as a result.  
[6] In its response, the Administration states that the contested decision contains 
evidence to support the conclusion that the Ventspils depot building is a service 
facility. In this case, the limitation of the property owner’s rights is based on 
Article 13(6) of Directive 2012/34/EU, the content of which is reproduced in 
Article 12.2(7) and (8) of the Law on Railways. There is therefore no doubt that 
the limitation of rights is justified. According to the Administration, there is no 
doubt about the interpretation of the legislation either. Consequently, it asks that 
the [appellant’s] request for a reference for a preliminary ruling to be made to the 
Court of Justice of the European Union be refused. 
[7] In its written observations, AS ‘Baltijas Ekspresis’ submits that the appellant’s 
appeal is unfounded. The Ventspils depot building must be regarded as a service 
facility in which AS ‘Baltijas Ekspresis’, in its capacity as facility operator, 
supplies services consistent with a service facility. AS ‘Baltijas Ekspresis’ argues 
that the appellant devised arbitrary criteria for determining the existence of a 
service facility that are not provided for in Directive 2012/34. The provisions of 
that directive and those of the Law on Railways have as their object and purpose 
to limit the scope for refusing access to service facilities. It is not therefore 
appropriate for the [Administratīvā] apgabaltiesa (Regional Administrative Court) 
to make a reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the 
European Union. A service facility’s activities may be terminated where that 
facility has not been in use for at least two consecutive years. According to AS 
‘Baltijas Ekspresis’, the interpretation of Article 13(6) of Directive 2012/34 is in 
no doubt whatsoever, inasmuch as it must first be established that the facility in 
question has not been in use for at least two consecutive years before any decision 
can be taken to close it. It does not therefore see any need to make a reference to 
the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling in this regard. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 30.1.2020 — CASE C-60/20 
 
6  
Rules of law applicable to the dispute 
EU law  
[8] Articles 3, 11, 12 and 13(2) and (6) of Directive 2012/34. 
Articles 3(9) and 15(5) and (6) of Regulation 2017/2177. 
Latvian law 
[9] Article 1, points 26 and 27, of the Law on Railways […] provides that that Law 
uses the following terms: 
26) service facility: the installation (including ground area, buildings and 
equipment), which has been specially arranged, as a whole or in part, to 
allow the supply of one or more services referred to in Article 12.1(2),(3) and 
(4) of this Law; 
27) service facility operator: any undertaking or department thereof that is 
responsible for managing one or more service facilities or providing to 
railway undertakings one or more of the services referred to in 
Article 12.1(2), (3) and (4) of this Law. 
Article 12.1(2) of the Law on Railways provides that service facility operators are 
to guarantee for all carriers, on a non-discriminatory basis, access (including 
track access) to their service facilities and, where appropriate, to the services 
supplied in the following facilities: 
[…] 
5) maintenance facilities, with the exception of heavy maintenance facilities 
dedicated to other types of rolling stock requiring specific facilities; 
6) other technical facilities, including railway rolling stock cleaning and 
washing facilities. 
Article 12.2(7) of the Law on Railways provides that, where one of the service 
facilities referred to in Article 12.1(2) of that law has not been in use for at least 
two consecutive years and interest by a transport undertaking for access to that 
facility has been expressed to the operator of that service facility on the basis of 
demonstrated needs, the owner must publicise the operation of the facility as 
being for lease or rent as a rail service facility, as a whole or in part, unless the 
operator of that service facility demonstrates that an ongoing process of 
reconversion prevents its use by any railway undertaking. 
Article 12.2(8) of the Law on Railways provides that, if one of the facilities 
referred to in Article 12.1(2) of that law is not in use for at least two consecutive 
years, its owner may publicise the fact that all or part of the service facility is to be 
LATVIJAS DZELZCEĻŠ 
 
7 
made available for rent, lease or alienation. If no offers are received within a 
period of three months from publication, the facility operator is to be authorised to 
close it, after giving at least three months’ notice to that effect to the National 
Railway Administration and the public railway infrastructure manager. 
Reasons why there are doubts as to the interpretation of EU law 
[10] The Law on Railways (in the version thereof applicable from 10 March 2016) 
contains the rules set out in Directive 2012/34. The provisions of the Law on 
Railways reproduce the content of that directive. Therefore, the application of the 
provisions of the Law on Railways also entails, in essence, an interpretation of the 
provisions of Directive 2012/34. 
So far as concerns access to service facilities and rail-related services, the 
European Commission adopted Regulation 2017/2177, applicable from 1 June 
2019. The adoption of Regulation 2017/2177 confirms that the European Union 
has recognised that access to service facilities and rail-related services calls for the 
existence of uniform rules throughout the European Union. Although the 
[contested] decision was adopted prior to the date of entry into force of Regulation 
2017/2177, the practical effects of that decision are still felt today, that is to say in 
a situation in which Regulation 2017/2177 is by now in force. Given that the 
adjudication on the substance of the dispute will principally affect a prospective 
situation, there is good reason to apply Regulation 2017/2177 for the purposes of 
analysing the content of the decision adopted by the Administration. 
[11] The Administratīvā apgabaltiesa (Regional Administrative Court) notes that, in 
the operative part of the contested decision, the Administration required the 
appellant: 1) to guarantee access to the Ventspils depot building in its capacity as 
a service facility; and 2) to guarantee access to the services supplied in the 
Ventspils depot building. 
The appellant owns the Ventspils depot building. It is common ground that the 
Ventspils depot building was not rented as a service facility, regard being had to 
the content of the lease agreement, and that it was also not mentioned in the 
network statement as a service facility either at the time when the lease agreement 
was concluded on 20 June 2016, or at the time when unilateral notice was given of 
termination of the leasehold. The leasehold dates back to the period prior to the 
accession by the Republic of Latvia to the European Union. The renewed lease 
agreement, signed on 20 June 2016, provided that the premises were to be leased 
to AS ‘Baltijas Ekspresis’ for use as office space and for the performance of 
economic activities (clause 1.2 of the agreement). The lease agreement was due to 
expire on 30 April 2028. Clause 7.3.7 of the lease agreement, for its part, provided 
that the appellant enjoyed a unilateral right to terminate the lease agreement in the 
event any unforeseen necessity on its part to avail itself of the premises in order to 
meet its own needs. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 30.1.2020 — CASE C-60/20 
 
8  
On 5 September 2017, the appellant gave AS ‘Baltijas Ekspresis’ notice of the 
unilateral termination of the lease agreement. AS ‘Baltijas Ekspresis’ did not say 
that the Ventspils depot building was a service facility until after it had received 
notice of termination of the lease agreement. Prior to then, therefore, the Ventspils 
depot building had not been regarded as a service facility under the leasehold and 
AS ‘Baltijas Ekspresis’ had not previously carried out activities characteristic of 
the services available in a service facility. 
The contested decision was adopted in the context of the complaint raised by AS 
‘Baltijas Ekspresis’ against the appellant’s decision to terminate the leasehold. 
The appellant is an undertaking responsible for managing the railway 
infrastructure. Consequently, the appellant does not provide services but takes on 
obligations to maintain the railway infrastructure. 
It is common ground that the appellant expressed the wish to use the Ventspils 
depot building in future to store railway rolling stock (wagons). In this instance, 
therefore, terminating the leasehold with AS ‘Baltijas Ekspresis’ might prevent 
the appellant in future from being able to use the Ventspils depot building for its 
economic activities, including the maintenance of locomotives used for freight 
transport. 
All of the foregoing considerations show that the dispute concerns the future use 
of the facilities at the Ventspils depot building. The regulatory body must assess 
whether there is good reason to impose a mandatory leasehold that would 
guarantee the interests of AS ‘Baltijas Ekspresis’ or to allow the appellant to use 
that place for purposes other than the provision of services. 
The Administratīvā apgabaltiesa (Regional Administrative Court) also notes that, 
for as long as the proceedings are under way, the contested decision will make the 
continued existence of the leasehold with AS ‘Baltijas Ekspresis’ compulsory, 
which is to say that the leasehold between that undertaking and the appellant will 
continue in being on a mandatory basis. 
[12] According to the appellant, the Court of Justice of the European Union should be 
asked, inter alia, whether the Ventspils depot building is to be regarded as a 
service facility, given that the premises comprising that property were leased for 
other purposes and the network statement does not mention them as a service 
facility. 
Article 3(11) of Directive 2012/34/EU provides that a service facility is the 
installation, including ground area, building and equipment, which has been 
specially arranged, as a whole or in part, to allow the supply of one or more of the 
services mentioned in points 2 to 4 of Annex II to that directive. 
In the view of the [Administratīvā] apgabaltiesa (Regional Administrative Court), 
it should be recognised that the Ventspils depot building is a service facility in so 
far as it meets the technical requirements that characterise that space as being 
suitable for providing services. 
LATVIJAS DZELZCEĻŠ 
 
9 
[13] The opinion of the [Administratīvā] apgabaltiesa (Regional Administrative Court) 
that the place in question should be classified as a service facility is not 
undermined by the appellant’s submissions to the effect that AS ‘Baltijas 
Ekspresis’ did not publish any information about the fact that it was providing 
services to other persons, namely that that place was accessible to the public for 
the provision of services[.] 
It is true that designating the service facility as such and publishing that 
designation are actions that guarantee access to those services and ensure the 
transparent use of that resource. In the opinion of the [Administratīvā] 
abgabaltiesa (Regional Administrative Court), however, the fact that those actions 
were not taken does not in itself support the conclusion that the Ventspils depot 
building does not constitute a service facility. The failure to take those actions 
may also be regarded as an error to be corrected through the drafting and 
publication of that information. 
Neither is the finding as a matter of fact that a service facility exists affected by 
the Administration’s misinterpretation of the concept of ‘self-supply of services’. 
The Administratīvā apgabaltiesa (Regional Administrative Court) recognises that 
AS ‘Baltijas Ekspresis’ does not perform a ‘self-supply of services’ within the 
meaning of Article 3(8) of Regulation 2017/2177 but uses the facilities for its 
economic needs. In the same way, the appellant likewise does not provide services 
to other railway undertakings (at least it did not until the [contested] decision was 
adopted). All of those circumstances show that the service facility in question 
must be regarded as an unused service facility. The leasing or reconversion of 
unused service facilities is governed by Article 13(6) of Directive 2012/34 and by 
Article 15 of Regulation 2017/2177. Consequently, the foregoing circumstances 
do not call into question the proposition that the aforementioned legislation, which 
provides for the continued use of unused service facilities, is of general 
application to the present case. 
[14] The contested decision is based on Article 12.1(2) of the Law on Railways, which 
essentially reproduces Article 13(2) of Directive 2012/34. 
Under Article 13(2) of Directive 2012/34, operators of service facilities are to 
supply in a non-discriminatory manner to all railway undertakings access, 
including track access, to service facilities and to the services supplied in those 
facilities. That provision therefore provides that the system operator must ensure 
that railway undertakings have access to service facilities and to the services 
supplied in those facilities. 
From 2002, the appellant leased the Ventspils depot building to AS ‘Baltijas 
Ekspresis’, which is neither directly nor indirectly subordinate to the appellant. 
Consequently, the appellant and AS ‘Baltijas Ekspresis’ are bound only by a 
leasehold. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 30.1.2020 — CASE C-60/20 
 
10  
According to recital 8 of Regulation 2017/2177, if a facility is owned, managed 
and operated by several entities, only the entities effectively responsible for 
providing the information and deciding on requests for access to the service 
facility and use of rail-related services should be considered as the operators of the 
service facility. 
In the opinion of the [Administratīvā] apgabaltiesa (Regional Administrative 
Court), the factual circumstances of the dispute confirm that the appellant cannot 
be regarded as the operator of the service facility, in so far as it is not responsible 
for providing information or deciding on requests for access to the services 
provided in the Ventspils depot building. 
[15] According to the Administration, the service facility operator’s obligations as set 
out in Article 13(2) of Directive 2012/34 (to guarantee access to the services 
supplied in the facility) can be imposed on a property owner who is not the service 
facility operator. The Administration bases its position on Article 12.[2](7) of the 
Law on Railways, which essentially corresponds to Article 13(6) of Directive 
2012/34. That interpretation of the legislation is founded on the view that 
termination of the lease may lead to a reconversion of the service facility. The 
Administration submits that the service facility may, in turn, be reconverted only 
if that facility has not been in use for two years and no offers to purchase it have 
been made. 
[16] The [Administratīvā] apgabaltiesa (Regional Administrative Court) notes that the 
wording of Article 13(6) of Directive 2012/34 does not oblige a property owner to 
provide access to the services provided in the facility. 
In the opinion of the [Administratīvā] apgabaltiesa (Regional Administrative 
Court), a schematic interpretation of the legislation does not support the inference, 
either, that, in the present case, the property owner is under an obligation to 
provide access to the services concerned. 
The principal purpose of Directive 2012/34 is to ensure non-discriminatory access 
to services. Access to services does not entail control of an infrastructure against 
the will of the owner. Making the infrastructure available to the railway 
undertaking (in this case, AS ‘Baltijas Ekspresis’) does not mean that AS ‘Baltijas 
Ekspresis’ enjoys rights equivalent to those of other transport undertakings to 
receive services in that place, but that it enjoys a right of rental which the others 
do not. It should be noted that a leasehold on infrastructure effectively constitutes 
an exclusive right. Consequently, the grant of such rights does not equate to a 
right to receive services. 
[17] Article 13(6) of Directive 2012/34 concerns the situation where a property owner 
leases an unused service facility to a person other than the facility operator, in 
other words to another leaseholder. That situation is not identical to the one at 
issue in the present case, where the leasehold between the property owner and the 
service facility leaseholder, who is not directly or indirectly linked to the property 
LATVIJAS DZELZCEĻŠ 
 
11 
owner, is terminated. Nonetheless, an analysis of the wording of that provision 
also leads to the conclusion that, in the context of the termination of a leasehold, 
the rail transport undertaking’s interest in maintaining the lease must prevail over 
the interests of the property owner. 
Article 13(6) of Directive 2012/34 does not provide that a person who shows an 
interest in renting an unused service facility enjoys an absolute right to take it on 
lease. That provision states that the service facility may be leased unless the 
operator of that service facility demonstrates that an ongoing process of 
reconversion prevents its use by any railway undertaking. 
In the view of the [Administratīve] apgabaltiesa (Regional Administrative Court), 
it follows from the wording of that provision that the operator of a service facility 
may, notwithstanding that a railway undertaking expresses an interest in taking 
over a service facility (by taking it on lease), refuse access to the service facility if 
it can demonstrate that the railway undertaking will reconvert the service facility. 
It should be noted that Directive 2012/34/EU also states, in recital 18 thereof, that 
any economic entity interested in operating that facility should be able to 
participate in the tendering procedure and submit an offer to take over the 
operation of the facility. However, a tender procedure does not have to be 
launched if a formal process to withdraw the dedication of the site to railway 
purposes is ongoing and the facility is being redeveloped for purposes other than 
use as a service facility. 
Thus the content of recital 18 of Directive 2012/34 also indicates that a railway 
undertaking that has an interest in taking over a service facility does not have a 
priority right to obtain access to that facility where the operator is carrying out a 
reconversion of that service facility. Consequently, the wording of those 
provisions does not sustain the Administration’s view that importance is to be 
attached only to the fact that AS ‘Baltijas Ekspresis’ had expressed an interest in 
continuing to operate that facility. 
The second sentence of Article 15(5) of Regulation 2017/2177, which clarifies 
certain aspects of the provisions of Article 13(6) of Directive 2012/34, provides 
that the operator may object to the leasing of the service facility by submitting 
documents proving that there is an ongoing process of reconversion, launched 
before the expression of interest. Consequently, the wording of Article 15(5) of 
Regulation 2017/2177 also indicates that the facility operator may decide to close 
that particular facility. 
[18] The Administration explains the wording of Article 13(6) of Directive 2012/34 as 
meaning that that provision applies only to situations in which the reconversion 
began prior to transposition of the Directive. The [Administratīvā] apgabaltiesa 
(Regional Administrative Court) finds that interpretation of the aforementioned 
provision to be unfounded, in so far as it is not consistent either with its wording 
or with the scheme of the Directive. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 30.1.2020 — CASE C-60/20 
 
12  
Article 15(5) of Regulation 2017/2177 states that, for the purposes of assessing 
the situation, account is to be taken of whether the reconversion process was 
launched prior to the expression of interest, but does not attach importance to any 
other criteria. 
That provision says that the service facility may be reconverted if necessary and 
that the reconversion is not subject to the condition of having commenced prior to 
the date of transposition of Directive 2012/34/EU. 
[19] In the view of the [Administratīvā] apgabaltiesa (Regional Administrative Court), 
if the service facility operator can reconvert the facility, there is no good reason 
why the owner of the facility cannot also terminate the leasehold in order to 
reconvert the service facility later. There is no material difference between those 
situations, since they are both concerned with the facility owner’s right to dispose 
freely of his assets (by carrying out a reconversion). 
There may be a number of objective reasons why the owner of a service facility 
would need to reconvert it. For example, it may be because carrying on the 
activities pursued in the facility requires major investment (full-scale renovation) 
or because the owner of the service facility needs the facility in order to perform 
other functions relating to rail transport. 
In accordance with Article 15(5) of Regulation 2017/2177, the person empowered 
to adopt a decision relating to the reconversion of a service facility has to 
demonstrate to the regulatory body only that the reconversion will take place. 
However, that provision does not say that, where there is evidence of the 
genuineness of the owner’s intention, the Administration may refuse to allow the 
operator (or owner) of the facility to reconvert it and impose an obligation to lease 
the premises to a person who has expressed an interest to that effect. 
[20] In short, the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa (Regional Administrative Court) notes 
that, generally speaking, the legal position may be regarded as being subject to the 
provisions of Article 13(6) of Directive 2012/34 and Article 15(5) and (6) of 
Regulation 2017/2177. However, those provisions do not support the inference 
that the property owner cannot give the leaseholder notice of termination of the 
lease agreement on the ground that he wishes to use the property for his own 
needs. 
In the opinion of the [Administratīvā] apgabaltiesa (Regional Administrative 
Court), Article 13(6) of Directive 2012/34 and Article 15(5) and (6) of Regulation 
2017/2177 make provision, principally, for a slightly different situation, which is 
to say that they do not expressly determine the lawfulness of terminating the 
leasehold or the criteria for assessing the lawfulness of doing so. 
Consequently, that legislation is not sufficiently clear with respect to the rights 
that are to be granted to a particular person in cases calling for an examination of 
the termination of a leasehold. 
LATVIJAS DZELZCEĻŠ 
 
13 
Recital 27 of Directive 2012/34 states that the main purpose of the legislation is to 
ensure non-discriminatory access to services. The leasing of infrastructure to a rail 
transport undertaking (in this case, AS ‘Baltijas Ekspresis’), in this instance, 
confers on the transport undertaking not the right to receive services on the same 
terms as other transport undertakings, but the (exclusive) right to use the 
infrastructure in order to meet its own needs. It must also be taken into account 
that the mandatory transfer to another person of control over an item of 
infrastructure gives rise to a more significant restriction of the infrastructure 
owner’s rights than a situation in which access must be granted to the services 
provided in the service facility. Consequently, the rules governing accessibility to 
services cannot be applied by analogy with a mandatory leasehold. 
[21] Account being taken of the foregoing considerations, it is necessary to ask the 
Court of Justice of the European Union whether Article 13(2) and (5) of Directive 
2012/34 and Article 15(5) and (6) of Regulation 2017/2177 allow the 
Administration, in the situation at issue, to require a property owner who is not 
responsible for providing services in a facility to grant access to those services.  
It is also important to consider, in the course of the examination of the case, the 
lawfulness of the termination of the lease agreement that gave rise to the dispute. 
Consequently, it is necessary to ask the Court of Justice of the European whether 
Article 13(6) of Directive 2012/34/EU and Article 15(5) and (6) of Regulation 
2017/2177 are to be interpreted as meaning that those provisions authorise a 
property owner to terminate a leasehold and reconvert a service facility if the 
owner needs the property for the purposes of his economic activities. 
Consequently, the [Administratīvā] apgabaltiesa (Regional Administrative Court) 
considers […] it necessary to make a reference for a preliminary ruling to the 
Court of Justice of the European Union. An order must therefore be made to stay 
the proceedings in this case pending a ruling from the Court of Justice of the 
European Union on the questions hereby referred. 
In accordance with Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European 
Union, the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa (Regional Administrative Court) 
hereby decides 
To refer the following questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union for 
a preliminary ruling: 
1) May Article 13(2) and (6) of Directive 2012/34 (Article 15(5) and (6) of 
Regulation 2017/2177) be applied in such a way that the regulatory body 
may impose on an infrastructure owner who is not the service facility 
operator the obligation to guarantee access to those services? 
2) Must Article 13(6) of Directive 2012/34 (Article 15(5) and (6) of Regulation 
2017/2177) be interpreted as meaning that it allows the owner of a building 
to terminate a leasehold and reconvert a service facility? 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 30.1.2020 — CASE C-60/20 
 
14  
3) Must Article 13(6) of Directive 2012/34 (Article 15(5) and (6) of Regulation 
2017/2177) be interpreted as meaning that it obliges the regulatory body to 
establish only whether the service facility operator (in this instance, the 
service facility owner) really has decided to reconvert it? 
To stay the proceedings pending a ruling from the Court of Justice of the 
European Union. 
[…]