Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62015CA0360

Joined Cases C-360/15 and C-31/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 30 January 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, Raad van State — Netherlands) — College van Burgemeester en Wethouders van de gemeente Amersfoort v X BV (C-360/15), Visser Vastgoed Beleggingen BV v Raad van de gemeente Appingedam (C-31/16) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Services in the internal market — Directive 2006/123/EC — Scope — Article 2(2)(c) — Exclusion of electronic communications services and networks — Article 4(1) — Concept of ‘service’ — Retail trade in goods — Chapter III — Freedom of establishment of service providers — Applicability in purely internal situations — Article 15 — Requirements to be evaluated — Territorial restriction — Zoning plan prohibiting the activity of retail trade in goods other than bulky goods in geographical zones situated outside the city centre — Protection of the urban environment — Authorisation of electronic communications services and networks — Directive 2002/20/EC — Financial payments attached to rights to install facilities for a public electronic communications network)

OJ C 112, 26.3.2018, p. 2–3 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

26.3.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/2


Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 30 January 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, Raad van State — Netherlands) — College van Burgemeester en Wethouders van de gemeente Amersfoort v X BV (C-360/15), Visser Vastgoed Beleggingen BV v Raad van de gemeente Appingedam (C-31/16)

(Joined Cases C-360/15 and C-31/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Services in the internal market - Directive 2006/123/EC - Scope - Article 2(2)(c) - Exclusion of electronic communications services and networks - Article 4(1) - Concept of ‘service’ - Retail trade in goods - Chapter III - Freedom of establishment of service providers - Applicability in purely internal situations - Article 15 - Requirements to be evaluated - Territorial restriction - Zoning plan prohibiting the activity of retail trade in goods other than bulky goods in geographical zones situated outside the city centre - Protection of the urban environment - Authorisation of electronic communications services and networks - Directive 2002/20/EC - Financial payments attached to rights to install facilities for a public electronic communications network))

(2018/C 112/02)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: College van Burgemeester en Wethouders van de gemeente Amersfoort (C-360/15), Visser Vastgoed Beleggingen BV (C-31/16)

Defendants: X BV (C-360/15), Raad van de gemeente Appingedam (C-31/16)

Operative part of the judgment

1.

Article 2(2)(c) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market must be interpreted as meaning that that directive is not applicable to fees/charges for the payment of which liability is connected with the rights of undertakings authorised to provide electronic communications networks and services to install cables for a public electronic communications network.

2.

Article 4(1) of Directive 2006/123 must be interpreted as meaning that the activity of retail trade in goods constitutes a ‘service’ for the purposes of that directive.

3.

The provisions of Chapter III of Directive 2006/123, on freedom of establishment of providers, must be interpreted as meaning that they also apply to a situation where all the relevant elements are confined to a single Member State.

4.

Article 15(1) of Directive 2006/123 must be interpreted as not precluding rules contained in a municipal zoning plan from prohibiting retail trade activity in goods other than bulky goods in geographical zones situated outside the city centre of that municipality, provided that all the conditions laid down in Article 15(3) of that directive are satisfied, which it is for the referring court to determine.


(1)  OJ C 346, 19.10.2015.

OJ C 136, 18.4.2016.


Top