Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2020:692
Date: 2020-09-10
Language of the case: Romanian
Subject matter: Energy;Right of establishment;Internal market - Principles;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property;Approximation of laws;Freedom to provide services
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Romania

Summary C-62/19 — 1 
Case C-62/19 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
29 January 2019 
Referring court: 
Tribunalul Bucureşti (Regional Court, Bucharest, Romania) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
14 December 2018 
Applicant: 
Star Taxi App SRL 
Defendants: 
Unitatea Administrativ Teritorială Municipiului Bucureşti prin 
Primarul General 
Consiliul General al Municipiului Bucureşti 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Administrative and fiscal action brought by the applicant Star Taxi App SRL 
against the defendants the Unitatea Administrativ Teritorială Municipiului 
Bucureşti prin Primarul General (Territorial Administrative Unit of the 
Municipality of Bucharest, Romania, represented by the General Mayor) and the 
Consiliul General al Municipiului Bucureşti (General Council of the Municipality 
of Bucharest, Romania) challenging a fiscal administrative act and opposing the 
ancillary applications to intervene made by the interveners IB, Camera Naţională a 
Taximetriştilor din România (National Chamber of Romanian Taxi Drivers), 
D’Artex Star SRL, Auto Cobălcescu SRL and Cristaxi Service SRL 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request for a preliminary ruling 
In accordance with Article 267 TFEU, interpretation is sought of Article 1(2) of 
Directive 98/34/EC, as amended by Directive 98/48/EC, Article 2(a), Article 3(2) 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-62/19 
 
2   
and (4) and Article 4 of Directive 2000/31/EC, Articles 9, 10 and 16 of Directive 
2006/123/EC, Article 5 of Directive (EU) 2015/1535 and Article 56 TFEU. 
Questions referred 
1. Are the provisions of Directive 98/34/EC (Article 1(2)), as amended by 
Directive 98/48/EC, and of Directive 2000/31/EC (Article 2(a)), which state 
that an Information Society service is a ‘service ... provided for 
remuneration, at a distance, by electronic means and at the individual 
request of a recipient of services’, to be interpreted as meaning that an 
activity such as that carried on by Star Taxi App SRL (namely a service 
consisting in putting taxi passengers directly in touch, via an electronic 
application, with taxi drivers) must be regarded specifically as an 
Information Society and collaborative economy service (bearing in mind 
that Star Taxi App SRL does not fulfil the criteria for being a transport 
undertaking considered by the Court of Justice of the European Union in 
paragraph 39 of its judgment in Case C-434/15 with reference to Uber)? 
2. In the event that [the application operated by] Star Taxi App SRL is to be 
regarded as an Information Society service, do the provisions of Article 4 of 
Directive 2000/31/EC, of Articles 9, 10 and 16 of Directive 2006/123/EC 
and of Article 56 TFEU entail the application of the principle of the freedom 
to provide services to the activity carried on by Star Taxi App SRL? If the 
answer to that question is in the affirmative, do those provisions preclude 
rules such as those set out in Articles I, II, III, IV and V of Hotărârea 
Consiliului General al Municipiului București nr. 626/19.12.2017 (Decision 
No 626 of the General Council of the Municipality of Bucharest of 
19 December 2017) (‘CGMB Decision No 626/2017’) amending and 
supplementing CGMB Decision No 178/2008 approving the framework 
regulation for the organisation and operation of local public taxi services, the 
regulations governing that service and the concession agreement for the 
delegated management of that service? 
3. In the event that Directive 2000/31/EC applies to the service provided by 
Star Taxi App SRL, are restrictions imposed by a Member State on the 
freedom to provide Information Society services which make the provision 
of such services conditional on the possession of an authorisation or licence 
valid measures derogating from Article 3(2) of Directive 2000/31/EC in 
accordance with Article 3(4) of that directive? 
4. Do the provisions of Article 5 of Directive (EU) 2015/1535 preclude the 
adoption, without first notifying the European Commission, of regulations 
such as those set out in Articles I, II, III, IV and V of CGMB Decision 
No 626/2017 amending and supplementing CGMB Decision No 178/2008 
approving the framework regulation for the organisation and operation of 
STAR TAXI APP 
 
3 
local public taxi services, the regulations governing that service and the 
concession agreement for the delegated management of that service? 
Provisions of EU law relied on 
Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 
1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of 
technical standards and regulations, as amended by Directive 98/48/EC: 
Article 1(2) 
Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 
2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular 
electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’): 
Article 2(a) and Articles 3 and 4 
Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
12 December 2006 on services in the internal market: Articles 9, 10 and 16 
Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
9 September 2015 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the 
field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services: 
Article 5 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Legea nr. 38/2003 privind transportul în regim de taxi şi în regim de închiriere 
(Law No 38/2003 on transportation by taxi services and by hire services): 
– Article 11(d), (j) and (u), which define ‘the authorising authority’, ‘taxi 
dispatching’ (‘dispecerat taxi’) and ‘taxi driver’, pursuant to which ‘taxi 
dispatching’ means activity relating to the provision of transportation by taxi 
and consisting in the taking of passenger requests by telephone or other means 
and the transmission of such requests to a taxi driver via a radio transmitter and 
receiver; 
– Article 2, which defines taxi transportation services as public utility services 
and stipulates the requirements that local public administrative authorities must 
meet in the organisation of such services; 
– Article 15, which establishes the obligation for taxi dispatching activities to be 
authorised and specifies the documentation on the basis of which such 
authorisation is to be obtained. 
Ordinul Ministrului Internelor şi Reformei Administrative nr. 356/2007 privind 
aprobarea Normelor metodologice pentru aplicarea prevederilor Legii nr. 38/2003 
privind transportul în regim de taxi şi în regim de închiriere (Decree No 356/2007 
of the Minister for the Interior and Administrative Reform approving the detailed 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-62/19 
 
4   
rules for the implementation of Law No 38/2003 on transportation by taxi services 
and by hire services), Article 33(1) and Article 34. Those provisions state, inter 
alia, that taxi transportation services may be provided only where customers are 
able to make use of such services by telephone request or other means through 
taxi dispatchers and that it is the responsibility of the authorised carrier to ensure 
that the taxi transportation service is dispatched, calling on the services of an 
authorised taxi dispatcher for that purpose. 
Legea nr. 365/2002 privind comerţul electronic (Law No 365/2002 on electronic 
commerce), Article 1(1) and Article 4(1) and (2). Those provisions define the 
concept of an Information Society service and lay down the principle that the 
provision of Information Society services by natural or legal persons may not be 
made subject to any prior authorisation and that such services are to be carried out 
in accordance with the principles of free and fair competition and in compliance 
with current legal provisions, without prejudice to legal provisions which require 
prior authorisation for the pursuit of activities not specifically and exclusively 
relating to Information Society services or service providers. 
Hotărârea Consiliului General al Municipiului Bucureşti nr. 626/19.12.2017 
pentru modificarea şi completarea Hotărârii Consiliului General al Municipiului 
Bucureşti nr. 178/2008 privind aprobarea Regulamentului-cadru, a caietului de 
sarcini şi a contractului de atribuire în gestiune delegată pentru organizarea şi 
executarea serviciului public de transport local în regim de taxi (CGMB Decision 
No 626 of 19 December 2017 amending and supplementing CGMB Decision 
No 178/2008 approving the framework regulation for the organisation and 
operation of local public taxi services, the regulations governing that service and 
the concession agreement for the delegated management of that service), Articles I 
to V. 
Succinct presentation of the facts and the main proceedings 
1 The applicant is a limited liability company governed by Romanian law, having 
its registered office in Bucharest. Its principal business is ‘other information 
technology service activities’. The applicant operates an application which 
directly connects taxi users with taxi drivers in the following manner: customers 
who use the STAR TAXI application (which may be downloaded free of charge 
from the Internet), after making a request for a service, receive on their mobile 
phone a list of potential taxi drivers for the required journey; five or six types of 
vehicle are shown on the screen of the mobile phone, with different rates; the 
customer is free to choose a particular driver based on the comments and ratings 
of previous customers, and may also cancel the request; the applicant does not 
pass requests on to taxi drivers and does not set the price for the journey; nor does 
it receive payment from the customer, who pays the taxi driver the appropriate 
amount at the end of the journey. 
STAR TAXI APP 
 
5 
2 The applicant runs the application simply by concluding service agreements 
directly with taxi drivers who are authorised and licenced to provide taxi 
transportation services. Under the agreement, the taxi driver is provided with a 
computer application (‘STAR TAXI — Driver’), a terminal (a smartphone) on 
which the STAR TAXI computer application is installed and a SIM card carrying 
limited traffic data, to enable use of the STAR TAXI application. In return, under 
the service agreement, the taxi driver is required to pay the applicant a fixed 
monthly fee. 
3 On 19 December 2017 CGMB Decision No 626/2017 was adopted. That decision, 
inter alia, amended the definitions of ‘dispatching’ and ‘computer application’. It 
also created an obligation for all taxis of authorised carriers to use dispatching 
services. Such dispatching services may be performed only by taxi dispatchers 
authorised by the Autoritatea de Autorizare a Primăriei Municipiului Bucureşti 
(Authorising Authority of the Municipality of Bucharest) and must enable 
customers to use the service by telephone request or by other means, including 
online applications which must obligatorily be identified with the dispatcher 
whose name appears on the dispatching authorisation issued by the Authorising 
Authority of the Municipality of Bucharest. 
4 By these new regulations, the applicant is required to obtain an authorisation from 
the Authorising Authority of the Municipality of Bucharest to carry on its activity. 
Moreover, the applicant has already received a fine of RON 4 500 for non-
compliance with the authorisation requirement stipulated by CGMB Decision 
No 626/2017. 
5 In addition, under the same decision, taxi drivers using the STAR TAXI 
application may be fined between RON 1 000 and RON 1 500, which has led to a 
decrease in the number of taxi drivers working with the applicant and a reduction 
in the rate of use of the application in question. 
6 On 21 December 2017 the applicant lodged a preliminary administrative 
complaint with the Municipality of Bucharest, requesting the revocation of 
CGMB Decision No 626/2017. On 1 February 2018, following the rejection of 
that complaint, the applicant brought an action before the referring court seeking 
annulment of CGMB Decision No 626/2017. 
Essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
7 The applicant submits that the activity which it carries on does not need 
authorisation such as that required by CGMB Decision No 626/2017 because it 
does not perform a dispatching activity nor does it provide transport services. The 
service which it provides is confined to operators of information services, to 
which the principle of the exclusion of prior authorisation laid down in Article 4 
of Directive 2000/31/EC applies. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-62/19 
 
6   
8 In addition, according to the applicant, CGMB Decision No 626/2017 was 
adopted in breach of the applicable legal provisions in force in that area and 
infringes the freedom to provide Information Society services. 
9 The defendant the Unitatea Administrativ Teritorială Municipiului Bucureşti has 
stated that the service provided by the applicant falls to be classified as a service 
in the field of transport within the meaning of Article 58(1) TFEU and falls 
outside the scope of Directive 2015/1535 laying down a procedure for the 
provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of the rules on 
Information Society services. The service offered by the applicant is not limited to 
connecting, by means of an application, authorised taxi drivers or carriers with 
persons wishing to make a journey; it also creates an offer of taxi transportation 
services that is made accessible through computer tools, albeit without any 
authorisation. 
Succinct presentation of the reasons for the reference 
10 The referring court considers that the resolution of the question of law in the 
present case depends on whether the applicant’s activity falls to be classified as an 
Information Society service within the meaning of Article 1(b) of Directive 
2015/1535 or as a service in the field of transport within the meaning of 
Article 2(d) of Directive 2006/123. At the same time, it considers it important to 
determine whether a regulation such as CGMB Decision No 626/2017 was subject 
to the requirement to give the European Commission prior notice before the 
administrative act was adopted, in accordance with Article 5 of Directive 
2015/1535. 
11 With reference to the previous case-law of the Court of Justice of the European 
Union, the referring court considers the circumstances of the present case to be 
different from those in Asociación Profesional Elite Taxi (C-434/15), in which the 
Court stated that an intermediation service such as that at issue in that case, the 
purpose of which is to connect, by means of a smartphone application and for 
remuneration, non-professional drivers using their own vehicle with persons who 
wish to make urban journeys, must be regarded as being inherently linked to a 
transport service and, accordingly, must be classified as ‘a service in the field of 
transport’ within the meaning of EU law, and that such a service must therefore be 
excluded from the scope of the general freedom to provide services and from the 
scope of the Directive on services in the internal market and the Directive on 
electronic commerce. 
12 The referring court observes that, in the present case, the applicant does not fulfil 
the criteria considered by the Court of Justice in paragraph 39 of its judgment in 
Case C-434/15: it does not select non-professional drivers who use their own 
vehicle, but concludes service agreements with authorised taxi drivers; it does not 
set the price for the journey, nor does it receive payment from the customer, who 
STAR TAXI APP 
 
7 
pays the taxi driver directly; nor does it exercise any control over the quality of 
the vehicles, the drivers or their conduct. 
13 The applicant has asked the referring court to refer questions to the Court of 
Justice for a preliminary ruling, arguing that those questions are both admissible 
and relevant, given that its application [STAR TAXI] does not satisfy any of the 
conditions listed in Case C-434/15 for classification as a transport service. 
14 The defendant the Unitatea Administrativ Teritorială Municipiului Bucureşti has 
asked that the request for questions to be referred for a preliminary ruling be 
dismissed as inadmissible, since the intermediation service which the applicant 
provides has already been classified by the Court of Justice, in Case C-434/15, as 
a transport service, inasmuch as the main element of that service, considered as a 
whole, is a taxi transportation service.