21.2.2022
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 84/23
Questions referred 1.
Must Article 13(1)(b)(i) of Regulation No 883/2004/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, Articles 3(1)(a) and 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator and repealing Council Directive 96/26/EC, and Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 on common rules for access to the international road haulage market be interpreted as meaning that it follows from the fact that an undertaking which obtains a road transport authorisation in a Member State of the European Union in accordance with Regulations (EC) No 1071/2009 and No 1072/2009 and which therefore must have an effective and stable establishment in that Member State that this constitutes irrefutable proof that its registered office is situated in that Member State within the meaning of Article 13(1) of the aforementioned Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 for the purposes of determining the applicable social security system, and are the authorities of the Member State of employment bound by that finding? 2.
Can the national court of the Member State of employment which determines that the road transport authorisation in question has been obtained by fraud disregard that authorisation, or must the authorities of the Member State of employment, on the basis of the finding of fraud, first request the withdrawal of that authorisation from the authorities which issued the authorisation?
(1) (2) (3)
OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1.
OJ 2009 L 300, p. 51.
OJ 2009 L 300, p. 72.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 9 November 2021 — ‘Gargždų geležinkelis’ UAB v Lietuvos transporto saugos administracija (Case C-671/21) (2022/C 84/30) Language of the case: Lithuanian Referring court Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas
Parties to the main proceedings Appellant: ‘Gargždų geležinkelis’ UAB Other parties to the proceedings: Lietuvos transporto saugos administracija Lietuvos Respublikos ryšių reguliavimo tarnyba ‘LTG Infra’ AB
Questions referred 1.
Must the first and second sentences of Article 47(4) of Directive 2012/34/EU (1) be interpreted as unambiguously prohibiting the establishment of a national legal regulation which provides that, in the event of congested infrastructure, the intensity of the use of railway infrastructure can be taken into account at the time of capacity allocation?
Does it have a bearing on this assessment whether the railway infrastructure utilisation rate is linked to the actual utilisation of that infrastructure in the past or to the planned utilisation during the period for which the relevant timetable is in force?
Do the provisions of Articles 45 and 46 of Directive 2012/34/EU, which confer a broad discretion on the public infrastructure manager or on the entity making decisions on the capacity to coordinate the requested capacity, and the implementation of those provisions in national law have any significance for that assessment?
Does the fact that infrastructure is identified as congested in a particular case due to the capacity applied for by two or more railway undertakings in respect of the carriage of the same freight have any significance for that assessment?