# C_2016260EN.01002801.xml

| 18.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/28

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 3 May 2016 — Flibtravel International SA, Léonard Travel International SA v AAL Renting SA, Haroune Tax SPRL, Saratax SCS and Others

(Case C-253/16)

(2016/C 260/35)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Flibtravel International SA, Léonard Travel International SA

Appellants:

Respondents: AAL Renting SA, Haroune Tax SPRL, Saratax SCS, Ryad SCRI, Taxis Bachir & Cie SCS, Abdelhamid El Barjraji, Abdelouahab Ben Bachir, Sotax SCRI, Mostapha El Hammouchi, Boughaz SPRL, Sahbaz SPRL, Jamal El Jelali, Mohamed Chakir Ben Kadour, Taxis Chalkis SCRL, Mohammed Gheris, Les délices de Fès SPRL, Abderrahmane Belyazid, E.A.R. SCS, Sotrans SPRL, B.M.A. SCS, Taxis Amri et Cie SCS, Aramak SCS, Rachid El Amrani, Mourad Bakkour, Mohamed Agharbiou, Omar Amri, Jmili Zouhair, Mustapha Ben Abderrahman, Mohamed Zahyani, Miltotax SPRL, Lextra SA, Ismael El Amrani, Farid Benazzouz, Imad Zufri, Abdel-Ilah Bokhamy, Ismail Al Bouhali, Bahri Messaoud & Cie SCS, Mostafa Bouzid, BKN Star SPRL, M.V.S. SPRL, A.B.M.B. SCS, Imatrans SPRL, Reda Bouyaknouden, Ayoub Tahri, Moulay Adil El Khatir, Redouan El Abboudi, Mohamed El Abboudi, Bilal El Abboudi, Sofian El Abboudi, Karim Bensbih, Hadel Bensbih, Mimoun Mallouk, Abdellah El Ghaffouli, Said El Aazzoui

Respondents:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 96(1) TFEU be interpreted as being capable of application to rates and conditions imposed by a Member State on taxi service operators where: (a) the taxi journeys concerned are only exceptionally made across national borders; (b) a significant proportion of the customers of those taxis consists of EU nationals or residents who are not nationals or residents of the Member State in question; and (c) in the specific circumstances of the case, the taxi journeys at issue are, for the passenger, very often no more than one stage in a longer trip the final destination or point of departure of which is in an EU country other than the Member State in question? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 96(1) TFEU be interpreted as being capable of application to rates and conditions imposed by a Member State on taxi service operators where: (a) the taxi journeys concerned are only exceptionally made across national borders; (b) a significant proportion of the customers of those taxis consists of EU nationals or residents who are not nationals or residents of the Member State in question; and (c) in the specific circumstances of the case, the taxi journeys at issue are, for the passenger, very often no more than one stage in a longer trip the final destination or point of departure of which is in an EU country other than the Member State in question?

| 2. | Must Article 96(1) TFEU be interpreted as being applicable to operating conditions other than fare conditions and the criteria for obtaining authorisation to carry on the transport activity in question, such as, in this case, a prohibition preventing taxi operators from making available individual seats rather than the vehicle in its entirety, and a prohibition on those operators determining themselves the final destination of the journey that they are offering to customers, which has the effect of preventing those operators from grouping together customers who are travelling to the same final destination? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 96(1) TFEU be interpreted as being applicable to operating conditions other than fare conditions and the criteria for obtaining authorisation to carry on the transport activity in question, such as, in this case, a prohibition preventing taxi operators from making available individual seats rather than the vehicle in its entirety, and a prohibition on those operators determining themselves the final destination of the journey that they are offering to customers, which has the effect of preventing those operators from grouping together customers who are travelling to the same final destination?

| 3. | Must Article 96(1) TFEU be interpreted as prohibiting, unless authorised by the Commission, measures such as those referred to in the second question (a) the general aim of which, among other objectives, is to protect taxi operators from competition from private hire vehicle companies and (b) the specific effect of which, in the particular circumstances of the case, is to protect coach service operators from competition from taxi operators? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must Article 96(1) TFEU be interpreted as prohibiting, unless authorised by the Commission, measures such as those referred to in the second question (a) the general aim of which, among other objectives, is to protect taxi operators from competition from private hire vehicle companies and (b) the specific effect of which, in the particular circumstances of the case, is to protect coach service operators from competition from taxi operators?

| 4. | Must Article 96(1) TFEU be interpreted as prohibiting, unless authorised by the Commission, a measure which prohibits taxi operators from soliciting customers where the effect of that measure in the particular circumstances of the case is to reduce their capacity to attract customers away from a competing coach service? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Must Article 96(1) TFEU be interpreted as prohibiting, unless authorised by the Commission, a measure which prohibits taxi operators from soliciting customers where the effect of that measure in the particular circumstances of the case is to reduce their capacity to attract customers away from a competing coach service?

---