# C_2014351EN.01000201.xml

| 6.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 351/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 351/2

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 3 July 2014 — Slovenská autobusová doprava Trnava, a.s. v Krajský úřad Olomouckého kraje

(Case C-318/14)

2014/C 351/02

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Slovenská autobusová doprava Trnava, a.s.

Applicant:

Defendant: Krajský úřad Olomouckého kraje

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 49 in conjunction with Article 52 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as precluding the application of national provisions which require a carrier whose seat is in another Member State and is established in the Czech Republic by means of an organisational unit to obtain, in addition to the licences and concessions authorising a carrier with its seat in the Czech Republic to operate domestic scheduled services (urban public transport), in order to pursue the same activity, also a special authorisation, the issue of which is at the discretion of the administrative authorities? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 49 in conjunction with Article 52 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as precluding the application of national provisions which require a carrier whose seat is in another Member State and is established in the Czech Republic by means of an organisational unit to obtain, in addition to the licences and concessions authorising a carrier with its seat in the Czech Republic to operate domestic scheduled services (urban public transport), in order to pursue the same activity, also a special authorisation, the issue of which is at the discretion of the administrative authorities?

| 2. | Is it relevant for the answer to Question 1 that this is a case of urban public transport operated under the public service obligation system on the basis of a public service contract for consideration paid from public funds within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 (1) on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it relevant for the answer to Question 1 that this is a case of urban public transport operated under the public service obligation system on the basis of a public service contract for consideration paid from public funds within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 (1) on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70?

1

| 3. | May Article 3(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 12/98 (2) of 11 December 1997 laying down the conditions under which non-resident carriers may operate national road passenger transport services within a Member State, in conjunction with Article 91 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, be interpreted as allowing a Member State to restrict the operation of urban public transport services by a carrier whose seat is in another Member State in the manner described in Question 1? |
| --- | --- |

3.

May Article 3(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 12/98 (2) of 11 December 1997 laying down the conditions under which non-resident carriers may operate national road passenger transport services within a Member State, in conjunction with Article 91 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, be interpreted as allowing a Member State to restrict the operation of urban public transport services by a carrier whose seat is in another Member State in the manner described in Question 1?

2

---

(1)  OJ 2007 L 315, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ 1998 L 4, p. 10.

2

---