(AGENPARL) – gio 12 gennaio 2023 Dear All,
Please find attached the press release in respect of Case C-42/21:
Abuse of a dominant position: The Court of Justice upholds the judgment of the General Court imposing a fine of approximately EUR 20 million on the Lithuanian national rail company
The Commission conducted a comprehensive analysis which makes it possible to establish to the requisite legal standard that the removal of railway infrastructure was capable of having anticompetitive effects
Kind regards,
Georgios Georgopoulos
Trainee
Press and Information Unit, Ireland / Malta
Communication Department
[cid:image002.jpg@01D5E282.B6DDC230]
[logo-en]
Rue du Fort Niedergrünewald
L-2925 Luxembourg
[curia.europa.eu](https://www.curia.europa.eu/)

Testo Allegato:
Communications Directorate

Press and Information Unit

curia.europa.eu

PRESS RELEASE No
9
/23

Luxembourg, 12 January 2023

Judgment of the Court in Case C
–
42
/21

P | Lietuvos geležinkeliai v

Commission

Abuse of a dominant position
:
The Court of Justice
upholds the judg
ment
of the General Court imposing

a fine of approximately
â?¬

20 million on the
Lithuanian national rail company

The Commission conducted a comprehensive analysis

which makes it possible to establish to the requisite legal
standard that the

Lietuvos geležinkeliai AB (LG),
the

Lithuanian

national railway company
both
manages railway infrastructure and
provides rail transport services in Lithuania
.
In 1999, LG conc
luded a commercial
(â??Orlenâ??
),
a Lithuanian oil company owned by the Polish oil company PKN Orlen SA, to

provide rail transport services
to Orlen in Lithuania. That agreement concerned in particular the transport of oil produ
cts from a large refinery
belonging to Orlen located in Bugeniai, in the north
–
west of Lithuania, close to the border with Latvia, to the
Lit
huanian seaport of
KlaipÄ?da.
Following a dispute

between LG and Orlen

which arose in 2008
, Orlen explored the
possi
bility of switching its seaborne export business from KlaipÄ?da to the seaports of Riga
a
nd Ventspils, in Latvia,

and in that context, to entrust the transport of its products from the Bugeniai refinery to
Latvijas dzelzceļš (LDZ),

the
national railway comp
any of Latvia
.

On account of a

suspended traffic on a 19
–
km section between Mažeikiai (L
ithuania) and the border with La
tvia
. From 3 October
2008, LG undertook
the comp
l

which
was
concluded before the end of October
2008.

Subsequently, since Orlen considered that LG

did not intend to repair the track at issue in the short term, it
had to
abandon
its plans to use LDZâ??s services
.

By

decision of 2 October 2017, the Co
m
mission imposed a fine of
close to

â?¬

28 million on LG for abuse of a
dominant

.

LG t
hen brought an action seeking the annulment of the
decision at issue and the reduction of the
a
mount of the
fine
before the General Court of the European Union. By
judgment of 18 November 2020, the General Court dismissed the appeal brought by LG and reduced the amount of
the fine to
â?¬

20 068 650
. LG

brought an appeal before the Court of Justice, se
eking to have the judgment of the

In its judgment delivered today, the Court

of Justice

upholds the judgment of the General Court
.

The Court points out, first of
all, that â??abuse of a dominant positionâ??, as provided for in EU law,
relates to the conduct
of a dominant undertaking which ha
s

the effect of hindering

. The
Court also
recalls

that it follows from its case
–
law

that a refusal to grant access to infrastructure developed by a
dominant undertaking for the purposes of its own business and owned by it

may constitute an abuse of a dominant
position.

Communications Directorate

Press and Information Unit

curia.europa.eu

Stay Connected
!

However, the Court states that
the removal of the track which inevita
by the dominant undertaking itself, must not be analysed as a r
e
fusal of access
. It can constitute
an independent
form of abuse.

In support of
the

forms of order seeking the annulment of the original judgment, L
G complained, in addition, that
the General Court erred in law in upholding the Commissionâ??s categorisation of the removal of the track as an
â??abuse of dominant positionâ?? as provided for in EU law. In that regard, the
Court
of Justice
rejects that ground o
f
appeal as being unfounded since it is based on a reading of the judgment under appeal which is manifestly
erroneous.

As regards the ground of appeal seeking to dispute the Commissionâ??s finding
s that the removal of the track

gave
rise to anticompetitive e
ffects, the Court rejected that gr
ound of appeal in its entirety.

As regards the calculation of the fine imposed on LG, the Court
of Justice
finds that the General Court exercised its
unlimited jurisdiction

by re
–
evaluating the amount of the fine and by reducing the am
ount imposed by the
Commission.

NOTE:

An appeal, on a point or points of law only, may be brought before the Court of Justice against a judgment or
order of the General Court. In principle, the

appeal does not have suspensive effect. If the appeal is admissible and
so permits, the Court of Justice may itself give final judgment in
the case. Otherwise, it refers the case back to the
General Court, which is bound by the decision given by the Court of Justice on the appeal.

Unofficial document for media use, not binding on the Court of Justice.

The
full text

of the judgment is published on the CURIA website on the day of delivery.

Press contact: Jacques René Zammit
â??
(+352) 4303 3355

Pictures of the delivery of the judgment are available from ”
Europe by Satellite
”
â??
(+32) 2 2964106