Action brought on 16 June 2025 – Spain v Commission
(Case T-388/25)
Language of the case: Spanish
Parties
Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Pérez-Zurita Gutiérrez, A. Torró Molés, acting as Agents)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
Annul Commission Decision C(2025) 2465 of 16 April 2025, pursuant to Article 8(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009 1 of the European Parliament and of the Council, concerning a disagreement between Germany and Spain regarding the authorisation of a regular passenger transport service by coach.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 91 TFEU and Article 16(2) of Regulation No 1073/2009:
a. Infringement of Article 16(2) of Regulation 1073/2009. The contested decision infringes the wording of Article 16(2) of the Regulation, which requires – in mandatory terms – cabotage operations to be subject to the national rules concerning authorisations and tendering procedures. In addition, the legislative history of Regulation No 1073/2009 also demonstrates that the contested decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of Article 16(2) and that, moreover, it absolutely runs counter to the objectives stated by the legislator when adopting those rules. Last, the context of Regulation No 1073/2009 also confirms the existence of an error of interpretation vitiating the contested decision. In particular, the Kingdom of Spain has confirmed that a correct contextual interpretation, which takes into account Articles 4, 15 and 16, validates the argumentation set out in the application.
b. The contested decision does not respect the division of competences between the Union and the Member States.
Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation 1370/2007, 1 which governs public passenger transport services by rail and by road. The contested decision renders the system envisaged in that regulation ineffective and infringes, inter alia, Articles 1, 2a, 3, 4 and 5 of that regulation.
Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 8(4) and (8) of Regulation No 1073/2009. The contested decision does not comply with the procedure laid down in those articles, in that it does not provide a reasoned answer to the Kingdom of Spain’s observations.
Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Protocol No 26 on services of general interest. The contested decision infringes the competence conferred on national authorities by that protocol by unduly interfering in the organisation of a national public service.
____________
1 Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 on common rules for access to the international market for coach and bus services, and amending Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 (OJ 2009 L 300, p. 88).
1 Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/96 and 1107/70 (OJ 2007 L 315, p. 1).