# C_2019213EN.01001901.xml

| 24.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 16 April 2019 — BONVER WIN, a. s. v Ministerstvo financí

(Case C-311/19)

(2019/C 213/18)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: BONVER WIN, a. s.

Respondent: Ministerstvo financí

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 56 et seq. of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union apply to national legislation (a binding measure of general application in the form of a municipal decree) prohibiting a certain service in part of one municipality, simply because some of the customers of a service provider affected by that legislation may come or do come from another Member State of the European Union?
  If so, is a mere assertion of the possible presence of customers from another Member State sufficient to trigger the applicability of Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, or is the service provider obliged to prove the actual provision of services to customers who come from other Member States? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 56 et seq. of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union apply to national legislation (a binding measure of general application in the form of a municipal decree) prohibiting a certain service in part of one municipality, simply because some of the customers of a service provider affected by that legislation may come or do come from another Member State of the European Union?

If so, is a mere assertion of the possible presence of customers from another Member State sufficient to trigger the applicability of Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, or is the service provider obliged to prove the actual provision of services to customers who come from other Member States?

| 2. | Is it of any relevance to the answer to the first question that:






  (a) | the potential restriction on the freedom to provide services is significantly limited in both geographical and substantive terms (potential applicability of a de minimis exception); |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Is it of any relevance to the answer to the first question that:

(a)

the potential restriction on the freedom to provide services is significantly limited in both geographical and substantive terms (potential applicability of a de minimis exception);

| (b) | it does not appear that the national legislation regulates in a different manner, in law or in fact, the position of entities providing services primarily to citizens of other Member States of the European Union, on the one hand, and that of entities focusing on a domestic clientele, on the other? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

it does not appear that the national legislation regulates in a different manner, in law or in fact, the position of entities providing services primarily to citizens of other Member States of the European Union, on the one hand, and that of entities focusing on a domestic clientele, on the other?

---