This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62020CN0041
Case C-41/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gericht Erster Instanz Eupen (Belgium) lodged on 28 January 2020 — DQ v Wallonische Region
Case C-41/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gericht Erster Instanz Eupen (Belgium) lodged on 28 January 2020 — DQ v Wallonische Region
Case C-41/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gericht Erster Instanz Eupen (Belgium) lodged on 28 January 2020 — DQ v Wallonische Region
IO C 19, 18.1.2021, p. 12–12
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
18.1.2021 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 19/12 |
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gericht Erster Instanz Eupen (Belgium) lodged on 28 January 2020 — DQ v Wallonische Region
(Case C-41/20)
(2021/C 19/15)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Gericht Erster Instanz Eupen
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: DQ
Defendant: Wallonische Region
Questions referred
|
1. |
Does national legislation which, as applied by the authorities, makes the use without any re-registration requirement of a foreign vehicle provided occasionally and for short periods of time to a citizen resident in Belgium by a citizen established in a different Member State contingent upon the citizen resident in Belgium carrying in the vehicle the private attestation of permission to use the vehicle, that is, an attestation within the meaning of Article 3(2), point 6, of the Royal Decree of 20 July 2001 on the registration of vehicles, conflict with the relevant provisions of EU law, in particular Articles 20 and 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union on freedom of movement and the free movement of capital, on the one hand, and/or Articles 63 and 64 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union on the free movement of capital, on the other, as two of the four fundamental freedoms of the European Union? |
|
2. |
Is national legislation, as described above and applied by the Walloon Region, justified by requirements of public security or other protective measures and is compliance with the national legislation, interpreted as meaning that a document issued by the foreign owner of the vehicle granting permission to use the vehicle for a limited and specified period of time must be carried in the vehicle, with no possibility of providing such a document subsequently, necessary in order to attain the objective pursued or could the objective have been attained by other, less strict and formalistic means? |
By order of 10 September 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Sixth Chamber) ruled as follows:
Article 63(1) TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State according to which a person residing in that Member State may rely on a derogation from the requirement to register vehicles laid down in that Member State, in respect of a vehicle registered in another Member State and made available to that person free of charge, for short periods of time, by the owner of that vehicle who resides in that other Member State, only where the documents attesting that the person concerned fulfils the conditions for that derogation are carried in the vehicle at all times, with no possibility of providing those documents subsequently.