# C_2011063EN.01000701.xml

| 26.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien — Austria) — Yellow Cab Verkehrsbetriebs GmbH v Landeshauptmann von Wien

(Case C-338/09) (1)

1

(Freedom to provide services - Freedom of establishment - Competition rules - Cabotage transport operations - National transportation of persons by bus service - Application to operate a service - Licence - Authorisation - Conditions - Requirement of a seat or permanent establishment in the national territory - Reduction of income compromising the profitability of a service already licensed)

2011/C 63/12

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Yellow Cab Verkehrsbetriebs GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Landeshauptmann von Wien

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien — Interpretation of Articles 49 et seq. EC and Article 81 et seq. EC — Legislation of a Member State subjecting the grant of a licence to operate a public transport service to the double condition that the applicant for that licence be established in that Member State and that the new service does not undermine the profitability of a similar existing transport service

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as opposing the legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, for the purposes of the grant of authorisation to operate a public urban bus service, where fixed stopping points are called at regularly in accordance with a timetable, requires applicant economic operators established in another Member State to hold a seat or another establishment in the territory of the host Member State even before being authorised to operate that service. By contrast, Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides for an establishment requirement where such a requirement does not apply until after that authorisation has been granted and before the applicant commences operation of that service. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as opposing the legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, for the purposes of the grant of authorisation to operate a public urban bus service, where fixed stopping points are called at regularly in accordance with a timetable, requires applicant economic operators established in another Member State to hold a seat or another establishment in the territory of the host Member State even before being authorised to operate that service. By contrast, Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides for an establishment requirement where such a requirement does not apply until after that authorisation has been granted and before the applicant commences operation of that service.

| 2. | Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as opposing national legislation which provides for the refusal of the grant of authorisation to operate a tourist bus service as a result of the reduced profitability of a competing undertaking which has been authorised to operate a service which is partially or entirely identical to the one applied for, on the sole basis of the statements of that competing undertaking. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as opposing national legislation which provides for the refusal of the grant of authorisation to operate a tourist bus service as a result of the reduced profitability of a competing undertaking which has been authorised to operate a service which is partially or entirely identical to the one applied for, on the sole basis of the statements of that competing undertaking.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.

1

---