Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62017CN0371

    Case C-371/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 19 June 2017 — Uber BV v Richard Leipold

    OJ C 318, 25.9.2017, p. 5–5 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    25.9.2017   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 318/5

    Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 19 June 2017 — Uber BV v Richard Leipold

    (Case C-371/17)

    (2017/C 318/08)

    Language of the case: German

    Referring court

    Bundesgerichtshof

    Parties to the main proceedings

    Appellant on a point of law: Uber BV

    Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Richard Leipold

    Questions referred

    1.

    In the case where an undertaking which, in cooperation with hire vehicle undertakings licensed for the carriage of persons, makes available a smartphone application through which users can place orders for chauffeur-driven hire vehicles, does that undertaking itself supply a service in the field of transport within the meaning of Article 58(1) TFEU and Article 2(2)(d) of Directive 2006/123 (1) if the organisational services provided by that undertaking are closely related to the service of carriage, in particular where that undertaking

    —

    determines the prices, the processing of payments and the conditions of carriage for the assignment of trips

    and

    —

    advertises the vehicles procured by the undertaking under its own brand designation and with the same uniform promotional offers?

    If the Court should answer Question 1 in the negative:

    2.

    May an injunction prohibiting a service of the kind at issue in the main proceedings be justified, in the light of current modes of transport, from the perspective of the safeguarding of public policy under Article 16(1) of Directive 2006/123 on the basis of the objective of maintaining the competitiveness and proper functioning of taxi services?

    (1)  Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market, OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36.

    Top