# C_2017318EN.01000502.xml

| 25.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 318/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 19 June 2017 — Uber BV v Richard Leipold

(Case C-371/17)

(2017/C 318/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Uber BV

Appellant on a point of law:

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Richard Leipold

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | In the case where an undertaking which, in cooperation with hire vehicle undertakings licensed for the carriage of persons, makes available a smartphone application through which users can place orders for chauffeur-driven hire vehicles, does that undertaking itself supply a service in the field of transport within the meaning of Article 58(1) TFEU and Article 2(2)(d) of Directive 2006/123 (1) if the organisational services provided by that undertaking are closely related to the service of carriage, in particular where that undertaking






  — | determines the prices, the processing of payments and the conditions of carriage for the assignment of trips |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

In the case where an undertaking which, in cooperation with hire vehicle undertakings licensed for the carriage of persons, makes available a smartphone application through which users can place orders for chauffeur-driven hire vehicles, does that undertaking itself supply a service in the field of transport within the meaning of Article 58(1) TFEU and Article 2(2)(d) of Directive 2006/123 (1) if the organisational services provided by that undertaking are closely related to the service of carriage, in particular where that undertaking

1

—

determines the prices, the processing of payments and the conditions of carriage for the assignment of trips

and

| — | advertises the vehicles procured by the undertaking under its own brand designation and with the same uniform promotional offers? |
| --- | --- |

—

advertises the vehicles procured by the undertaking under its own brand designation and with the same uniform promotional offers?

If the Court should answer Question 1 in the negative:

| 2. | May an injunction prohibiting a service of the kind at issue in the main proceedings be justified, in the light of current modes of transport, from the perspective of the safeguarding of public policy under Article 16(1) of Directive 2006/123 on the basis of the objective of maintaining the competitiveness and proper functioning of taxi services? |
| --- | --- |

2.

May an injunction prohibiting a service of the kind at issue in the main proceedings be justified, in the light of current modes of transport, from the perspective of the safeguarding of public policy under Article 16(1) of Directive 2006/123 on the basis of the objective of maintaining the competitiveness and proper functioning of taxi services?

---

(1)  Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market, OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36.

1

---