Joined Cases C‑419/12 and C‑420/12
Crono Service scarl and Others
and
Anitrav — Associazione Nazionale Imprese Trasporto Viaggiatori
v
Roma Capitale
and
Regione Lazio
(Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio)
‛References for a preliminary ruling — Articles 49 TFEU, 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU — Car and driver hire services — Purely internal situation — Jurisdiction of the Court — Conditions for admissibility’
Summary — Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 13 February 2014
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Identifying the relevant elements of EU law — Reformulation of the questions
(Art. 267 TFEU)
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Need to provide the Court with sufficient information on the factual and legislative context — Extent of the obligation in the sphere of competition — Insufficient information regarding that context — Inadmissibility
(Art. 267 TFEU)
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Question raised regarding a dispute confined within a single Member State — Car and driver hire services — Activities not falling within the scope of the provisions adopted in order to liberalise transport services — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court
(Arts 49 TFEU, 58 TFEU and 91(1) TFEU)
See the text of the decision.
(see paras 27-30)
See the text of the decision.
(see paras 31-33, 44, operative part)
Article 49 TFEU cannot be applied to activities which have no factor linking them with any of the situations governed by EU law and which are confined in all relevant respects within a single Member State. Where a dispute is of a local nature and all the facts are confined within a single Member State, it cannot be presumed that the legislation at issue will have any cross-border impact. It is true that the Court’s answer to questions concerning fundamental freedoms of the European Union may, even in a purely internal situation, nevertheless be of use to the referring court, especially if its national law were to require it to allow a national to enjoy the same rights as those which a national of another Member State would derive from EU law in the same situation.
However, a situation in which the applicants, who hold authorisations to operate a car and driver hire service which have been issued by one municipality, appear to be attempting to gain access, under conditions other than those being applied to them, to the territory of another municipality, not in order to pursue that activity on a stable and continuous basis from there, but with a view to pursuing that activity on a more ad hoc basis from other territories, falls by nature to be measured, not against the freedom of establishment, but — prima facie — against the freedom to provide services. However, pursuant to Article 58 TFEU, the freedom to provide services in the transport sector is not governed by Article 56 TFEU, but rather by Title VI in Part Three of the TFEU, which concerns the common transport policy. Moreover, car and driver hire services do not, in essence, fall within the scope of the provisions adopted, on the basis of Article 91(1) TFEU, in order to liberalise transport services. It follows that the interpretation of Article 49 TFEU has no bearing on the facts and purpose of the dispute.
(see paras 36-44, operative part)
Joined Cases C‑419/12 and C‑420/12
Crono Service scarl and Others
and
Anitrav — Associazione Nazionale Imprese Trasporto Viaggiatori
v
Roma Capitale
and
Regione Lazio
(Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio)
‛References for a preliminary ruling — Articles 49 TFEU, 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU — Car and driver hire services — Purely internal situation — Jurisdiction of the Court — Conditions for admissibility’
Summary — Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 13 February 2014
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Identifying the relevant elements of EU law — Reformulation of the questions
(Art. 267 TFEU)
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Need to provide the Court with sufficient information on the factual and legislative context — Extent of the obligation in the sphere of competition — Insufficient information regarding that context — Inadmissibility
(Art. 267 TFEU)
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Question raised regarding a dispute confined within a single Member State — Car and driver hire services — Activities not falling within the scope of the provisions adopted in order to liberalise transport services — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court
(Arts 49 TFEU, 58 TFEU and 91(1) TFEU)
See the text of the decision.
(see paras 27-30)
See the text of the decision.
(see paras 31-33, 44, operative part)
Article 49 TFEU cannot be applied to activities which have no factor linking them with any of the situations governed by EU law and which are confined in all relevant respects within a single Member State. Where a dispute is of a local nature and all the facts are confined within a single Member State, it cannot be presumed that the legislation at issue will have any cross-border impact. It is true that the Court’s answer to questions concerning fundamental freedoms of the European Union may, even in a purely internal situation, nevertheless be of use to the referring court, especially if its national law were to require it to allow a national to enjoy the same rights as those which a national of another Member State would derive from EU law in the same situation.
However, a situation in which the applicants, who hold authorisations to operate a car and driver hire service which have been issued by one municipality, appear to be attempting to gain access, under conditions other than those being applied to them, to the territory of another municipality, not in order to pursue that activity on a stable and continuous basis from there, but with a view to pursuing that activity on a more ad hoc basis from other territories, falls by nature to be measured, not against the freedom of establishment, but — prima facie — against the freedom to provide services. However, pursuant to Article 58 TFEU, the freedom to provide services in the transport sector is not governed by Article 56 TFEU, but rather by Title VI in Part Three of the TFEU, which concerns the common transport policy. Moreover, car and driver hire services do not, in essence, fall within the scope of the provisions adopted, on the basis of Article 91(1) TFEU, in order to liberalise transport services. It follows that the interpretation of Article 49 TFEU has no bearing on the facts and purpose of the dispute.
(see paras 36-44, operative part)