12.12.2022
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 472/7
3.
Article 17(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012 and Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I), must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘trade or profession’ covers not only activity as a self-employed person, but also activity as an employed person.
In addition, an agreement between the employee and a person who is a third party to the employer mentioned in the contract of employment, under which that person is directly liable to the employee for that employer’s obligations arising from the contract of employment, does not, for the purpose of applying those provisions, constitute a contract concluded outside and independently of any trade or professional activity or purpose.
(1)
OJ C 44, 8.2.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin — Germany) — DB Station & Service AG v ODEG Ostdeutsche Eisenbahn GmbH (Case C-721/20) (1) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rail transport — Article 102 TFEU — Abuse of a dominant position — Directive 2001/14/EC — Access to railway infrastructure — Article 30 — Railway regulatory body — Review of infrastructure charges — National courts — Review of charges in the light of competition law — Division of competence between the regulatory authority and the national courts) (2022/C 472/08) Language of the case: German Referring court Kammergericht Berlin
Parties to the main proceedings Applicant: DB Station & Service AG Defendant: ODEG Ostdeutsche Eisenbahn GmbH
Operative part of the judgment Article 30 of Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure, as amended by Directive 2007/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007, must be interpreted as not precluding national courts from applying Article 102 TFEU and national competition law concurrently, in order to hear and determine a claim for reimbursement of infrastructure charges, provided, however, that the competent regulatory body has previously ruled on the lawfulness of the charges in question.
In that context, a duty of sincere cooperation is incumbent upon those courts, which are required to take account of decisions delivered by that body as a criterion of assessment and to give reasons for their own decisions in the light of all the documents in the files submitted to them.
(1)
OJ C 88, 15.3.2021.