This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62009CN0338
Case C-338/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien (Austria) lodged on 24 August 2009 — Yellow Cab Verkehrsbetriebs GmbH
Case C-338/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien (Austria) lodged on 24 August 2009 — Yellow Cab Verkehrsbetriebs GmbH
Case C-338/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien (Austria) lodged on 24 August 2009 — Yellow Cab Verkehrsbetriebs GmbH
OJ C 282, 21.11.2009, p. 24–25
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
21.11.2009 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 282/24 |
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien (Austria) lodged on 24 August 2009 — Yellow Cab Verkehrsbetriebs GmbH
(Case C-338/09)
2009/C 282/42
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Yellow Cab Verkehrsbetriebs GmbH
Defendant: Magistrat der Stadt Wien
Questions referred
1. |
Is it compatible with the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services within the meaning of Article 49 et seq. EC and with EU competition law for the purposes of Article 81 et seq. EC for a provision of national law relating to the grant of authorisation to operate a motor vehicle service, and thus to provide public transport, where fixed stopping points are called at regularly in accordance with a timetable, to lay down the following as conditions for such authorisation:
|
2. |
Is it compatible with the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services within the meaning of Article 49 et seq. EC and with EU competition law for the purposes of Article 81 et seq. EC for a provision of national law relating to the grant of authorisation to operate a motor vehicle service, and thus to provide public transport where fixed stops are called at regularly in accordance with a timetable, to provide that authorisation is to be refused where, if the motor vehicle service applied for commences, the revenues of a competing undertaking running on a partially or entirely identical short route will be so substantially reduced by this service that the continued running of the service operated by the competing undertaking will no longer be economically viable? |