Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2026:75
Date: 2026-02-05
Language of the case: French

Translation C-813/24 – 1 
Case C-813/24 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
27 November 2024 
Referring court: 
Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
27 November 2024 
Appellant: 
Smartflats SA 
Respondent: 
Région de Bruxelles-Capitale 
  
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING 
From the 2nd Chamber F of the cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Court of Appeal, 
Brussels, Belgium) in the case of: 
SMARTFLATS SA, whose registered office is at […] [1050 Ixelles, Belgium] 
[Information relating to the appellant and its lawyer]; 
v 
RÉGION DE BRUXELLES CAPITALE (BRUSSELS CAPITAL REGION) 
represented by its Government acting through the person of the Minister-
President, whose offices are at […] [1000 Brussels, Belgium] [Information 
relating to the respondent and its lawyer]. 
* * * 
I. Facts and background to the proceedings 
1. 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 27. 11. 2024 – CASE C-813/24 
 
2  
The facts of the case may be summarised as follows: 
– Smartflats is a company active in the Brussels real estate sector, in 
particular in short-term rentals. On 10 September 2020, it made a prior 
declaration to the Service Economie et Emploi (Economy and 
Employment Department) of the Service Public Régional de Bruxelles 
(Brussels Regional Public Service; ‘Brussels Economy and 
Employment’) in accordance with Article 4 of the ordonnance du 8 
mai 2014 relative à l’hébergement touristique (ordinance of 8 May 
2014 on tourist accommodation; ‘the ordinance of 8 May 2014’) in 
respect of property situated in Brussels; 1 
– By a letter dated 11 November 2021, Brussels Economy and 
Employment issued a decision declaring that that application was 
inadmissible on the ground that the file was incomplete, stating that, in 
the absence of a registration number, the provision of accommodation 
was not authorised; 
– On 24 June 2022, the previous counsel to Smartflats wrote to the 
mayor of the City of Brussels to complain about the fact that it would 
appear that applications for a fire safety certificate were not being 
processed in cases where the city considered that the abovementioned 
certificate of town planning compliance could not be issued (even 
though the ordinance did not make the issue of one of those documents 
subject to the issue of the other); Seven reminders were subsequently 
sent, the last one on 12 January 2023; 
– On 5 October 2022, the Brussels Economy and Employment inspector 
drew up a report stating that the premises at issue were being used for 
tourist accommodation which did not meet the requirements of the 
ordinance of 5 May 2014 and, on 8 November 2022, Brussels 
Economy and Employment issued an order for the immediate cessation 
of the provision of tourist accommodation on the ground that 
Smartflats had not made a declaration prior to its activity; this is the 
contested decision […]; 
– On 10 November 2022, Smartflats applied to the mayor of the City of 
Brussels for a simplified inspection certificate relating to fire 
protection for the tourist accommodation at issue; 2 
 
1 M.B., 17 June 2014, Ed. 2, p. 45695. As will be stated below, that ordinance makes such an 
activity subject to the grant of a registration number on the basis, inter alia, of the submission of 
an administrative file including a fire safety certificate and a certificate of town planning 
compliance (Article 5(2)(a) and (b) of the ordinance of 8 May 2014). 
2 The difference between applications for normal and simplified inspection certificates will be 
examined below. 
SMARTFLATS 
 
3 
– On 7 December 2022, the Minister-President of the Government of the 
Brussels-Capital Region, responsible for tourism, confirmed the 
cessation order of 8 November 2022 on the ground that Smartflats did 
not have the fire safety certificate referred to in Article 5(2)(a) of the 
ordinance of 8 May 2014 or the registration number authorising it to 
provide the accommodation concerned in accordance with Article 4 of 
that ordinance; 
– Subsequently, Smartflats having continued to provide accommodation 
at the premises at issue, a report was drawn up which found that the 
order to cease providing accommodation immediately had been 
infringed; 
– Smartflats then applied for a simplified fire safety certificate which 
was refused on 22 May 2023 by the City of Brussels on the ground that 
no application for planning permission had been submitted; that 
certificate was finally granted on appeal. 
2. 
On 3 July 2023, Smartflats brought the present proceedings, claiming in essence 
that the order for immediate cessation of the activity of providing the tourist 
accommodation at issue should be withdrawn. The Brussels-Capital Region 
contended that that application was unfounded and filed a counterclaim claiming 
in essence that the prohibition on providing accommodation at the premises in 
question should be accompanied by a penalty payment. […] [Procedural detail]. 
By order of 13 November 2023, the President of the Tribunal de première instance 
francophone de Bruxelles (Brussels Court of First Instance (French-speaking)) 
declared Smartflats’ action unfounded and upheld the counterclaim of the 
Brussels-Capital Region. Smartflats has brought an appeal against that order. 
II. Relevant provisions of national 3 and European Union law 
3. 
Article 2 of the ordinance of the Brussels-Capital Region of 8 May 2014 on tourist 
accommodation states that it partially transposes Directive 2006/123/EC of the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the 
internal market (‘the Services Directive’). 4 
 
3 The Belgian law is available at the following address: 
https://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/cgi_loi/welcome.pl?language=fr&view_numac= 2004a31182f 
4 A new ordinance ‘on tourist accommodation’ was adopted on 1 February 2024. However, it has 
not yet entered into force. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 27. 11. 2024 – CASE C-813/24 
 
4  
It defines tourist accommodation as ‘any accommodation offered for one or more 
nights, in return for payment, on a regular or occasional basis, to tourists’ 
(Article 3(2)), which refers to various categories of accommodation, including 
‘tourist residences’ (Article 3(6)). 
4. 
In accordance with Article 4 of the ordinance, any provision of tourist 
accommodation is subject to a ‘prior declaration’ and registration and to 
compliance with the conditions laid down inter alia in Article 5(2), namely: 
– obtaining a fire safety certificate issued by the mayor of the 
municipality in which the tourist accommodation is located on the 
advice of the Service d’Incendie et d’Aide Médicale Urgente de la 
Région de Bruxelles-Capitale (Brussels-Capital Region Fire and 
Emergency Medical Service; ‘SIAMU’), it being specified that, for 
certain establishments, including tourist residences, a simplified 
inspection certificate may suffice under the conditions established by 
the government (a) 
– obtaining a certificate from the municipality in which the tourist 
accommodation in question is located, confirming that the 
accommodation ‘is provided in accordance with the land use and 
planning regulations and town planning rules in force’ (b). 
As regards the fire safety certificate, [Article 27 of] the arrêté du Gouvernement 
de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale du 24 mars 2016 portant exécution de 
l’ordonnance du 8 mai 2014 relative à l’hébergement touristique (Decree of the 
Government of the Brussels-Capital Region of 24 March 2016 implementing the 
ordinance of 8 May 2014 on tourist accommodation) 5 […] specifies the 
conditions for obtaining a simplified inspection certificate within the meaning of 
Article 5(2)(a) of the ordinance, namely where the maximum capacity of the 
accommodation is less than ten persons and no other accommodation is located in 
the same building, or where the accommodation provided is located in a building 
housing several tourist accommodations whose combined capacity is less than ten 
persons, on condition, in the case of tourist residences, however, that the tourist 
accommodation is not provided by an operator which simultaneously operates 
more than five accommodations. […] [Consideration relating to the procedure] 
By the certificate of town planning compliance, the municipality confirms that the 
planned provision of accommodation is in accordance with the planning situation 
of the property. In that regard, the reference document is the glossary of the Plan 
Régional d’Affectation du Sol (Regional Land Use Plan; ‘PRAS’) which 
distinguishes between ‘dwelling’, defined as ‘a set of premises which have been 
designed for the habitation or residence of one or more persons, provided that 
 
5 M.B., 14 April 2016, p. 24452. 
SMARTFLATS 
 
5 
another use has not been legally established, including nursing homes and 
approved or subsidised accommodation facilities, but excluding hotel 
establishments’ and ‘hotel establishment’, namely any ‘establishment for the 
accommodation of persons which is able to offer services to customers, such as a 
hotel, hostel, youth hostel, motel, guesthouse, apartment hotel, flat hotel, …’. 6 
That distinction is important, since Article 98(1)(5) of the Code bruxellois de 
l’aménagement du territoire (Brussels Town and Country Planning Code; 
‘CoBAT’) 7 requires planning permission to be obtained when the intended use 
(that is to say the function for which the property is to be used according to the 
relevant building or planning permission) or the use (understood, within the 
context of the aforementioned intended use, to mean the specific activity that is 
carried out in or on the property) of a building is to be changed. The issue, to 
which the court will return, is whether all ‘tourist residences’ within the meaning 
of the ordinance of 8 May 2014 are to be regarded as ‘hotel establishments’ within 
the meaning of the PRAS and, therefore, whether or not the conversion of a 
dwelling into a tourist residence requires planning permission to be obtained. 
An explanatory ministerial circular of 10 May 2016 concerning the tasks of the 
Municipality and the Mayor in the implementation of the ordinance of 8 May 
2014 has been drawn up, which will be discussed below […] [Point relating to the 
fact that that circular cannot be annulled]. 8 
5. 
[…]. [Points relating to procedure, the consequences of non-compliance with the 
conditions governing the provision of accommodation and means of redress] 
6. 
The relevant provisions of the Services Directive are, in addition to recital 9 
thereof, Articles 9, 10 and 13. 
Ill. The reasons for referring questions to the Court of Justice on the 
interpretation of European Union law 
7.  
 
6 That glossary is available at the following address: https://perspective.brussels/fr/outils-de-
planification/pras/les-prescriptions-litterales-legales-du-pras/l-glossaire-des-principaux-termes-
utilises-dans-les-prescriptions-urbanistiques. 
7 M.B., 26 May 2004, p. 40738. 
8 It is available at the following address: https://pouvoirs-locaux.brussels/10-mai-2016-circulaire-
explicative-relative-aux-missions-de-la-commune-et-du-bourgmestre-dans-le. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 27. 11. 2024 – CASE C-813/24 
 
6  
In its judgment by which the Court of Appeal, Brussels, decided to refer questions 
to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling, which is annexed to this judgment, 
it inter alia: 
– took the view that it was not disputed, having regard, in particular, to 
the principles set out by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 
22 September 2020, Cali Apartments, Joined Cases C-724/18 and 
C-727/18, EU:C:2020:743, in particular, paragraphs 45, 53, 56 and 57, 
that: 
– the ordinance of 8 May 2014 falls within the scope of Directive 
2006/123 and activities, such as those pursued by Smartflats, 
consisting in the letting, for remuneration and for short periods, 
of furnished accommodation for residential use to a transient 
clientele which does not take up residence there, constitute 
services within the meaning of Article 4 of the directive, 
– the scheme introduced by the ordinance of 8 May 2014 is an 
authorisation scheme within the meaning of Article 9 of the 
Services Directive (and not a ‘requirements’ scheme as referred 
to in Articles 14 and 15 thereof), with the result that it must 
comply with the conditions for such a scheme, as well as those 
referred to in Articles 10 and 13; 
– considered, as regards compliance with Article 9 of the directive, that 
the Brussels scheme was not discriminatory and that it was based on 
overriding reasons relating to the public interest, but that its 
proportionality could be open to debate, 
– considered, with regard to compliance with Article 10 of the directive, 
that: 
– the requirement for a fire certificate appears to meet the 
requirements of that provision, 
– the requirement to produce a certificate of compliance with the 
land use and planning regulations and town planning rules in 
force, to be issued by the municipal authority, could prove to be 
more problematic. 
8.  
It is true that the ordinance of 8 May 2014 requires only the production of a 
certificate of town planning compliance and that certificate must not be confused 
with the substantive land use and planning rules which apply in general. The 
requirement that a change of use or intended use of a property requires planning 
permission follows from Article 98 of the CoBAT, which is a land use and 
planning regulation that must be complied with by both service providers and 
SMARTFLATS 
 
7 
individuals acting in their private capacity and the infringement of which gives 
rise to penalties which do not specifically concern a service activity, with the 
result that it should in principle fall outside the scope of the Services Directive. 
The court refers in that regard to paragraphs 40 to 41 of the judgment in Cali 
Apartments and to a judgment of the Belgian Conseil d’État (Council of State), 
which held that the abovementioned certificate of town planning compliance had 
‘the sole function of certifying that the tourist accommodation is provided in 
accordance with the land use and planning regulations and town planning rules 
in force’ and ‘is based entirely on a finding of fact and legal classification and 
differs, in that regard, from a town planning certificate, which entails some 
discretion in the assessment of what is appropriate in the light, in particular, of 
proper planning of the premises’ (Council of State, 30 September 2021, judgment 
No 251.700), 9 and concluded from this that, if ‘tourist accommodation complies 
with the land use and planning regulations and town planning rules in force, 
interpreted in a manner consistent with European Union law and in particular the 
Services Directive, a municipality is obliged to issue a certificate of town planning 
compliance in respect of that property’ [and] that this ‘is a specific legal 
obligation which the aforementioned ordinance imposes on the municipality 
directly and in the performance of which the tourist accommodation provider has 
an interest since that certificate is necessary in order to be able to register the 
accommodation’, with the result that the ordinance of 8 May 2014 effectively 
establishes an individual right to obtain such a certificate and the challenge to the 
act refusing it ‘therefore falls outside the jurisdiction of the Council of State’ 
(Ibid.).  
9. 
On the basis of those considerations alone, it could be argued that the requirement 
of town planning compliance meets the requirements of Article 10 of the Services 
Directive since it pursues an overriding reason relating to the public interest, 
whether it be the protection of tourists (who are more assured of occupying a 
property that complies with the regulations, in terms, potentially, of both the 
safety of the property and the lawfulness of its use, [by] avoiding, as the Region 
points out, the unpleasant surprise of arriving at a property which is sealed) or the 
protection of the urban environment (by ensuring that the geographical 
distribution of the various possible uses is respected), and does not appear 
disproportionate, since it involves no more than the production of an 
administrative document in respect of which, according to the Council of State, 
the competent authority has no discretion. The criterion also appears, prima facie, 
 
9 The Court does not have the ECLI number of this judgment. It is, however, available at the 
following address: http://www.raadvst-
consetat.be/Arrets/251000/700/251700.pdf#xml=http://www.raadvstconsetat.be/apps/dtsearch/g
etpdf.asp?Docld= 39616&lndex=c%3a%5csoftware%5cdtsearch%Scindex%5carrets%5ffr%5c
&HitCount= 2&hits= 16 + 17+&01151512024616. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 27. 11. 2024 – CASE C-813/24 
 
8  
to be non-discriminatory, clear and unambiguous, objective, made public in 
advance, transparent and accessible. 
However, account must be taken of the explanatory ministerial circular of 10 May 
2016 concerning the tasks of the Municipality and the Mayor in the 
implementation of the ordinance of 8 May 2014, 10 which points out that, from the 
point of view of town planning, ‘the main criterion distinguishing a hotel 
establishment from accommodation is the fact that the function of 
residence/habitation is secondary to the concept of accommodation for a transient 
clientele’ and therefore the concept of hotel establishment ‘is to be interpreted 
broadly and covers any form of establishment intended to accommodate a 
transient population, which distinguishes it from the concept of accommodation’. 
According to that circular, ‘it is necessary to determine in concreto whether the 
tourist accommodation provided in the property does – or does not – require the 
property to be designated as a “hotel establishment” within the meaning of the 
PRAS’. That circular sets out the following examples: 
‘Such verification shall be carried out on a case-by-case basis: 
– If the property in which the tourist accommodation establishment is located 
retains its main function as residential accommodation, it does not need to be 
designated as a hotel establishment. That is the case, for example, with 
accommodation which is offered for occasional rental to tourists or 
accommodation in which the operator habitually resides, while operating part of 
the dwelling as tourist accommodation; 
– A contrario, where the property is given over entirely to tourist accommodation, 
with the result that it is no longer anybody’s habitual residence, the activity of 
tourist accommodation is no longer ancillary to the property’s function as a 
dwelling and the property must be regarded as a hotel establishment within the 
meaning of the PRAS. 
It goes without saying that the municipalities retain full discretion to assess in 
concreto the conformity of the particular use of the property in question’. 
According to the Council of State, it follows from the definitions in the PRAS 
glossary ‘that the decisive factor in the distinction between a hotel establishment 
and a dwelling is that the former welcomes guests and is able to offer them 
services, although this is not a mandatory criterion and the latter is a means of 
allowing people to live or reside in a property, hotel establishments being 
expressly excluded from that definition of accommodation’ (Council of State, 
29 April 2021, judgment No 250.479). 11 It concludes from this that the meaning 
 
10 A supplement to that circular has also been drawn up, but does not need to be examined here. 
11 The Court does not have the ECLI number of this judgment. It is, however, available at the 
following address: http://www.raadvst-
consetat.be/Arrets/250000/400/250479.pdf#xml=http://www.raadvst-
SMARTFLATS 
 
9 
given by the circular to the concept of hotel establishment does not differ from 
that given by the PRAS, even though the definition in the glossary refers to hotel 
establishments being able to offer services to customers (a criterion not set out in 
the circular) since it is not ‘a mandatory criterion for an establishment to be 
classified as such’, as the decisive factor is ‘the act of welcoming people and 
offering them accommodation’. The Council of State therefore declared the action 
for annulment directed against that circular inadmissible on the ground that that 
the circular and its supplement cannot be classified as ‘regulatory circulars since, 
inter alia, they merely explain town planning rules without adding new rules to 
them and the municipalities to which those circulars are addressed remain 
entirely free in their assessment of the situations in respect of which they are 
asked to issue the certificate of compliance with respect to land use and town 
planning’ (Ibid.). 
10.  
The Court of Appeal is uncertain whether making a distinction, in relation to 
properties in which tourist accommodation is provided, between those which 
retain ‘a principal function as residential dwellings’ (thus mainly accommodation 
for individuals acting in their private capacity) and those which do not, with the 
consequence that the former retain their designation as dwellings (without the 
need for a permit) and the latter must be the subject of an application for planning 
permission (at least if they were previously designated as dwellings) in order to 
obtain a certificate of town planning compliance, amounts to specifically 
regulating access to or the exercise of a service activity within the meaning of the 
Services Directive. 
If it were to be considered that the Belgian scheme, as described above, broadly 
speaking and taking into account in particular the approach described by Advocate 
General Bobek in his Opinion delivered before the judgment in Cali Apartments 
(points 49 to 63), falls within the scope of the Services Directive, it would then be 
necessary to determine whether the requirement of town planning compliance is 
sufficiently clear, unambiguous and objective (see, in particular, paragraphs 96 to 
102 of the judgment in Cali Apartments). It could be considered that the 
information given in the abovementioned circular makes it possible to determine 
in a sufficiently clear and precise manner, despite the discretion left to the 
municipal authorities, which tourist establishments must be regarded as hotel 
accommodation. In its abovementioned judgment, however, the Court of Appeal 
cites authoritative legal literature which is critical of the ‘conceptual hiatus’ 
referred to above between the categories of accommodation defined by the 
ordinance of 8 May 2014, on the one hand, and those laid down by the PRAS, on 
the other, inasmuch as this creates a degree of legal uncertainty and doubts as to 
the compatibility of the Brussels scheme with the Services Directive, which are 
fuelled by an ineffectiveness on the part of that scheme that is reflected in the fact 
      
consetat.be/abos/dtsearchigetpdfasp?DocId=38957&Index=c%3a%5csoftware%5cdtsearch%5ci
ndex%5carret s%5ffr%5c&HitCount=2&hits=16 + 17+&01138532024616. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 27. 11. 2024 – CASE C-813/24 
 
10  
that most tourist accommodation is provided without due regard for the law in 
force in the Brussels-Capital Region. The question also arises as to whether the 
system described above might conflict with Article 13 of the directive in view of 
the autonomy enjoyed by municipalities in issuing certificates of town planning 
compliance. 
11. 
Those various factors led the court to consider that there was justification for 
referring the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union, given that 
certain questions arise which have not yet been expressly answered in the case-
law of the Court of Justice, such as whether: 
– legislation in the field of the development or use of land, which 
formally applies in the same way to providers in the exercise of their 
economic activity as to individuals acting in their private capacity, 
may nevertheless be regarded as falling within the scope of the 
Services Directive in so far as, when interpreted in the context of the 
scheme of prior authorisation to which providers in the short-term 
accommodation sector are subject, it is aimed in practice, if not solely, 
at least principally, at those providers, 
– Article 13 of the directive is complied with by national legislation 
which leaves some margin of discretion to a municipal authority, 
without organising or framing that discretion in procedural terms. 
Moreover, the assessment of the proportionality of a legal scheme (whether from 
the point of view of Article 9 or Article 10 of the directive) is not an exact science, 
and therefore, for reasons of legal certainty, the court would benefit from having 
the Court of Justice’s point of view in this regard. 
IV. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
The Court of Appeal, Brussels therefore wishes to refer the following questions to 
the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: 
‘1. Does Directive 2006/123 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market apply 
to national legislation on land use and town planning, such as 
Article 98 of the Brussels Town and Country Planning Code (CoBAT), 
which formally applies in the same way to providers of a service 
activity within the meaning of that directive and to individuals acting 
in their private capacity, but which, as interpreted in accordance with 
the recommendation given in the explanatory ministerial circular of 
10 May 2016 concerning the tasks of the Municipality and the Mayor 
in the implementation of the ordinance of 8 May 2014 on tourist 
accommodation, that is to say, another set of rules on tourism falling 
SMARTFLATS 
 
11 
within the scope of that directive, in practice, affects, if not exclusively 
then at least principally, access to or the exercise of that activity? 
2. If the answer to the first question is in the negative, may or must that 
national legislation on land use and town planning nevertheless be 
taken into account in assessing the compatibility with Directive 
2006/123 of the abovementioned set of rules on tourism, since the 
latter includes in Article 5(2) thereof, among the criteria for the grant 
of prior authorisation, a certificate of compliance with the national 
legislation on land use and town planning, regard being had, in 
particular, to precluding conditions for granting authorisation from 
duplicating requirements or controls which are equivalent or 
essentially comparable to which the service provider is already subject 
(Article 10(3) of the directive)? 
3. Does Article 9 of Directive 2006/123 of the European Parliament and 
of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market 
preclude, from the point of view of the requirement of proportionality, 
a legal scheme that makes the provision of any accommodation 
equipped with the fixtures and fittings necessary for sleeping and 
cooking, and including, where appropriate, hotel-type services for an 
additional charge, that is offered to tourists for one or more nights, in 
return for payment, on a regular or occasional basis, subject to a prior 
declaration and registration, on the principal ground that tourists 
should be protected and on the subsidiary (and implicit) ground that 
that scheme protects the urban environment, including, by implication, 
accommodation? 
4. Does Article 10 of Directive 2006/123 of the European Parliament and 
of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market 
preclude a legal scheme that makes the provision of any 
accommodation equipped with the fixtures and fittings necessary for 
sleeping and cooking, and including, where appropriate, hotel-type 
services for an additional charge, that is offered to tourists for one or 
more nights, in return for payment, on a regular or occasional basis, 
subject to a prior declaration and registration, which involves, inter 
alia, producing a certificate, issued by the municipality in which the 
tourist accommodation in question is located, confirming that that 
accommodation is provided in accordance with the land use and 
planning regulations and town planning rules in force, given that the 
national legislation on land use and town planning requires planning 
permission to be obtained in the event of a change in the use or 
intended use of immovable property from “dwelling” to “hotel 
establishment” and that the provision of accommodation in the sense 
referred to above would be classified as the operation of a hotel 
establishment, in the light of the way in which the concepts of hotel 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 27. 11. 2024 – CASE C-813/24 
 
12  
establishment and tourist accommodation are each defined in the sets 
of rules at issue? 
5. Does the answer to the previous question differ depending on whether 
or not the classification of “hotel establishment” is left to the discretion 
of the municipal authority as provided for in a ministerial circular? 
6. Does Article 13 of Directive 2006/123 of the European Parliament and 
of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market 
preclude a legal scheme that makes the provision of any 
accommodation equipped with the fixtures and fittings necessary for 
sleeping and cooking, and including, where appropriate, hotel-type 
services for an additional charge, that is offered to tourists for one or 
more nights, in return for payment, on a regular or occasional basis, 
subject to a prior declaration and registration, which involves, inter 
alia, producing a certificate, issued by the municipality in which the 
tourist accommodation in question is located, confirming that that 
accommodation is provided in accordance with the land use and 
planning regulations and town planning rules in force, given that no 
time limit is set for the issue of that certificate, no specific obligation 
to state reasons is imposed and no specific means of redress is 
provided for? 
7. If the condition relating to the production of a certificate of town 
planning compliance is unlawful under European Union law, does 
European Union law require the exclusion of that requirement alone or 
of the entire scheme of prior declaration and registration?’ 
[…] [Points relating to the specific features of the national proceedings] 
[…] 
[Date, signatures and forms of procedure]