Case C-595/25, Arriva Personenvervoer Nederland and Others: Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 9 September 2025 – Arriva Personenvervoer Nederland NV and Others v Staatssecretaris Openbaar Vervoer en Milieu
Date: 2025-09-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: carriage of passengers, national competent authority, provision of services, rail transport, services of general interest, transport company








C_202506494EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/6494


15.12.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 9 September 2025 – Arriva Personenvervoer Nederland NV and Others v Staatssecretaris Openbaar Vervoer en Milieu


(Case C-595/25, Arriva Personenvervoer Nederland and Others)

(C/2025/6494)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Arriva Personenvervoer Nederland NV, Vereniging Federatie Mobiliteitsbedrijven Nederland, EBS Public Transportations BV, Keolis Nederland BV, QBuzz BV, Transdev Nederland Holding NV, Allrail VZW, FlixTrain GmbH, FlixBus BV, Heurotrain BV

Defendant: Staatssecretaris Openbaar Vervoer en Milieu

Questions referred







1.


Is it automatically compatible with Article 8(2)(iii) of Regulation No 1370/2007 (1) if (as in the present case) the competent authorities award, on the basis of Article 5(6), before its expiry, a public service contract whose duration does not exceed 10 years and ends by 24 December 2033 at the latest?










2.


If Question 1 is answered in the negative, does Article 8(2)(iii) of Regulation No 1370/2007 preclude the competent authorities from awarding a public services contract on the basis of Article 5(6) shortly before its expiry (here: on 21 December 2023) that does not take effect shortly thereafter (here: on 1 January 2025)?
Does the length of the mobilisation period deemed necessary by the competent authorities for the concessionaire have any (decisive) significance in this context if (as in the present case) the length of that preparation period differs from previous practice in the Member State concerned, the public service contract is awarded to the same concessionaire as before, and the specifications and scope of the new contract are to a significant extent similar to those of the contract still in force? If so, what is the legal basis for this?










3.


How does the case-law of the EU Courts on the classification of services as services of general economic interest (SGEIs) in relation to the imposition of public service obligations relate to the specific assessment framework of Regulation 1370/2007 and Directive 2012/34? (2)











4.


In the light of the answer to Question 3, what is the relationship between, on the one hand, the competence provided for in Article 2a(1), read in conjunction with the definition of ‘public service obligation’ in Article 2(e) of Regulation No 1370/2007, and, on the other hand, the right of access of railway undertakings to railway infrastructure in all Member States for the purpose of operating a passenger service under Article 10(2) of Directive 2012/34?
Does the right of open access take precedence, in the sense that the specifications and scope, which the competent authorities must establish in accordance with the policy objectives, may, in principle, relate only to the provision of passenger transport services that a commercial operator would not provide, or would not provide to the same extent or under the same conditions? Or do the policy objectives, as set out in the public transport policy documents of the Member State concerned take precedence, even if these result in the exclusion of services that a commercial operator could provide to the same extent and under the same conditions through open access?
In that regard, what is the meaning of the expression ‘without prejudice to Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007’ in Article 10(2) of Directive 2012/34?
In that regard, what is the meaning of the expression ‘the competent authority shall duly respect the principle of proportionality, in accordance with Union law’ in Article 2a(1) of Regulation No 1370/2007?










5.


In the light of the answer to Question 4, what is the extent of the competent authorities’ obligation to examine the domestic rail market before (intending to) impose a public service obligation? Is it sufficient to examine the willingness and actual capabilities of commercial operators to provide the service required by the policy objectives under open access, or must the assessment of the market offer be made at the level of the offer provided under open access for a specific train service to which the intended public service obligation relates?






(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 1191/69 and 1107/70 (OJ 2007 L 315, p. 1).

(2)  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).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/6494/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)