# C_2015311EN.01002201.xml

| 21.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/22

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 26 June 2015 — The Queen on the application of Hemming (trading as ‘Simply Pleasure Ltd.’) and others v Westminster City Council

(Case C-316/15)

(2015/C 311/27)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Hemming, trading as ‘Simply Pleasure Ltd.’, James Alan Poulton, Harmony Ltd, Gatisle Ltd, trading as ‘Janus’, Winart Publications Ltd, Darker Enterprises Ltd, Swish Publications Ltd.

Applicants:

Defendant: Westminster City Council

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

Where an applicant for the grant or renewal of a sex establishment licence has to pay a fee made up of two parts, one related to the administration of the application and non-returnable, the other for the management of the licensing regime and refundable if the application is refused:

| (1) | does the requirement to pay a fee including the second refundable part mean, as a matter of European law and without more, that the respondents incurred a charge from their applications which was contrary to article 13(2) of Directive 2006/123/EC on Services in the Internal Market (1) in so far as it exceeded any cost to Westminster City Council of processing the application? |
| --- | --- |

(1)

does the requirement to pay a fee including the second refundable part mean, as a matter of European law and without more, that the respondents incurred a charge from their applications which was contrary to article 13(2) of Directive 2006/123/EC on Services in the Internal Market (1) in so far as it exceeded any cost to Westminster City Council of processing the application?

1

| (2) | does a conclusion that such a requirement should be regarded as involving a charge — or, if it is so to be regarded, a charge exceeding the cost to Westminster City Council of processing the application — depend on the effect of further (and if so what) circumstances, for example:






  (a) | evidence establishing that the payment of the second refundable part involved or would be likely to involve an applicant in some cost or loss, |
| --- | --- | --- |

(2)

does a conclusion that such a requirement should be regarded as involving a charge — or, if it is so to be regarded, a charge exceeding the cost to Westminster City Council of processing the application — depend on the effect of further (and if so what) circumstances, for example:

(a)

evidence establishing that the payment of the second refundable part involved or would be likely to involve an applicant in some cost or loss,

| (b) | the size of the second refundable part and the length of time for which it is held before being refunded, or |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the size of the second refundable part and the length of time for which it is held before being refunded, or

| (c) | any saving in the costs to Westminster City Council of processing applications(and so in their non-refundable cost) that results from requiring an up-front fee consisting of both parts to be paid by all applicants? |
| --- | --- |

(c)

any saving in the costs to Westminster City Council of processing applications(and so in their non-refundable cost) that results from requiring an up-front fee consisting of both parts to be paid by all applicants?

---

(1)  OJ L 376, p. 36

1

---