CELEX: 62020CA0060
Language: en
Date: 2021-07-15 00:00:00
Title: Case C-60/20: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa — Latvia) — ‘Latvijas Dzelzceļš’ VAS v Valsts dzelzceļa administrācija (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rail transport — Directive 2012/34/EU — Single European railway area — Article 13(2) and (6) — Access to service facilities and to rail-related services — Regulation (EU) 2017/2177 — Reconversion of facilities — Powers of the regulatory body)

30.8.2021   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 349/9
            
         
      Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa — Latvia) — ‘Latvijas Dzelzceļš’ VAS v Valsts dzelzceļa administrācija
      (Case C-60/20) (1)
      
      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Rail transport - Directive 2012/34/EU - Single European railway area - Article 13(2) and (6) - Access to service facilities and to rail-related services - Regulation (EU) 2017/2177 - Reconversion of facilities - Powers of the regulatory body)
      (2021/C 349/11)
      Language of the case: Latvian
      
         Referring court
      
      Administratīvā apgabaltiesa
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Applicant:‘Latvijas Dzelzceļš’ VAS
      
         Defendant: Valsts dzelzceļa administrācija
      
         intervener:‘Baltijas Ekspresis’ AS
      
         Operative part of the judgment
      
      
                  1.
               
               
                  Article 13(2) and (6) of Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 establishing a single European railway area must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to supply all railway undertakings with non-discriminatory access to service facilities, within the meaning of Article 3(11) of that directive, referred to in point 2 of Annex II thereto, cannot be imposed on the owners of such facilities who are not operators of those facilities;
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Article 13(6) of Directive 2012/34 must be interpreted as not applying to a situation in which the owner of a building housing a service facility, within the meaning of Article 3(11) of that directive, which is in use, intends to terminate a lease agreement relating to that building in order to reallocate the latter to its own use.
               
            
         (1)  OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.