Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2022:997
Date: 2022-12-15
Language of the case: Spanish
Subject matter: State aids;Competition;Right of establishment
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Spain

Summary C-50/21 – 1 
Case C-50/21 
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 2021 
Referring court:  
Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña (High Court of Justice, 
Catalonia, Spain) 
Date of the decision to refer:  
19 January 2021 
Applicant:  
Prestige and Limousine, S. L. 
Defendant:  
Área Metropolitana de Barcelona (Metropolitan Area of Barcelona) 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Administrative-law challenge to a local authority regulation – Passenger 
transport – Licensing of private hire vehicle (PHV) services – Restrictions – 
Limiting the number of PHV licences on the basis of the number of taxi licences – 
Requirement for dual licensing in order to provide a PHV service solely in the 
metropolitan area of Barcelona 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request for a preliminary ruling 
Freedom of establishment – State aid – Article 49 TFEU and Article 107(1) 
TFEU – National legislation restricting the number of licences for private hire 
vehicles (PHV) in the metropolitan area of Barcelona in accordance with a ratio of 
one to every 30 taxi licences – National legislation requiring dual licensing and 
additional requirements for urban private hire vehicle (PHV) services 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-50/21 
 
2  
Questions referred 
1) Do Article 49 and Article 107(1) TFEU preclude national laws ― statutory 
and regulatory provisions ― which, without any reasonable justification, 
limit PHV licences to one for every 30 taxi licences or fewer? 
2) Do Article 49 and Article 107(1) TFEU preclude a rule of national law 
which, without any reasonable justification, requires a second licence and 
the fulfilment of additional requirements for PHVs wishing to provide urban 
services? 
Provisions of EU law relied upon 
Articles 49 and 107 TFEU 
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 20 December 2017, Asociación Profesional 
Elite Taxi, C-434/15, EU:C:2017:98120 
Provisions of national law relied upon 
Under Article 43 of the Ley 16/1987, de 30 de julio, de ordenación de los 
transportes terrestres (Law 16/1987 of 30 July 1987 on the regulation of land 
transport) (BOE 182 of 31 July 1987), as amended by Royal Decree-Law 3/2018 
of 20 April 2018 (BOE 97 of 21 April 2018), (‘the LOTT’), the grant of a public 
transport licence is conditional on the provision of evidence by the applicant 
undertaking that, amongst other things, it satisfies such other specific conditions 
required for the proper performance of the services as may be established by 
regulation, having regard to principles of proportionality and non-discrimination. 
Article 48 of the Law provides as follows: 
‘1. The grant of a public transport licence shall be non-discretionary and may 
therefore be refused only where the necessary requirements are not satisfied. 
2. However, in accordance with European Union laws and any other applicable 
provisions, where the supply of public hire vehicles is subject to quantitative 
limits within the autonomous community or at a local level, regulations may be 
made establishing limits on the number of new licences granted for the provision 
of interurban transport by the aforesaid class of vehicles and for private hire 
vehicles. 
3. Without prejudice to the provisions of the previous paragraph, in order to 
maintain an appropriate balance in the supply of both forms of transport, the grant 
of new licences for private hire vehicles may be refused where the proportion of 
existing licences in the territory of the autonomous community in which the 
vehicles are intended to be established is more than one for every 30 licences 
issued for public hire vehicles. 
PRESTIGE AND LIMOUSINE 
 
3 
However, those autonomous communities to which responsibility in respect of 
licences for private hire vehicles has been delegated by the national government 
may alter the rule on proportionality set out in the previous paragraph, provided 
that the rule they establish is less restrictive.’ 
Article 91 of the LOTT provides that public transport licences shall be valid for 
the provision of services throughout national territory, with no restrictions as 
regards the starting point or destination of the journey, with the exception, 
amongst others, of licences for private hire vehicles, which must comply with any 
conditions imposed by regulations as regards the starting point, destination or 
route offered by services. 
The LOTT is implemented by the Reglamento de la Ley de Ordenación de los 
Transportes Terrestres (Regulation implementing the Law on the regulation of 
land transport), which has been amended several times. With regard to this 
regulation, attention should be drawn to the Orden FOM/36/2008, de 9 de enero, 
por la que se desarrolla la sección segunda del capítulo IV del título V, en materia 
de arrendamiento de vehículos con conductor, del Reglamento de la Ley de 
Ordenación de los Transportes Terrestres (Order FOM/36/2008 of 9 January 2008 
implementing the second section of Chapter IV of Title V of the Regulation 
implementing the Law on the regulation of land transport, concerning private hire 
vehicles), which was in turn amended by Order FOM/2799/2015 of 18 December 
2015. Article 1 of the order, entitled ‘Mandatory licensing requirement’, stipulates 
that ‘in order to carry on private hire vehicle services, a licence must be obtained 
for each vehicle that is to be used for such services …’. 
The main proceedings concern a challenge to the Reglamento de ordenación de la 
actividad de transporte urbano discrecional de viajeros con conductor en 
vehículos de hasta nueve plazas que circula íntegramente en el ámbito del Área 
Metropolitana de Barcelona (Regulation governing non-scheduled urban 
transport services provided by private hire passenger vehicles with up to nine 
seats operating solely within the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona, ‘the RVTC’), 
approved on 26 June 2018 by the Consejo Metropolitano del Área Metropolitana 
de Barcelona (Metropolitan Council of the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona, ‘the 
AMB’ or ‘the defendant’) and published in the Boletín Oficial de la Provincia de 
Barcelona (Official Gazette of the Province of Barcelona, ‘the BOPB’) on 9 July 
2018 and also in the Diari Oficial de la Generalitat de Catalunya (Official Gazette 
of the Government of Catalonia, ‘the DOGC’) number 7897 of 14 June 2019, 
which came into force on 25 July 2018. 
After citing the legal bases for the regulation in national law and the law of the 
Autonomous Community of Catalonia, the preamble to the RVTC notes that the 
passenger transport model in question is subject to government regulation by 
means of various different techniques, in a manner completely different from the 
models adopted elsewhere, under which passenger transport in its various 
different forms is ‘liberalised’ in a way that favours private transport. The model 
is justified by reference to the pursuit of environmental and financial sustainability 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-50/21 
 
4  
and the provision of new spaces to be used for public purposes other than vehicle 
traffic. The preamble states that this is incompatible with promoting an increase in 
urban private hire vehicles hired for individual use or for the total capacity of the 
vehicle. 
Article 1 establishes that the purpose of the RVTC is to regulate non-scheduled 
urban passenger transport provided by vehicles with up to nine seats operating 
solely within the metropolitan area. Article 2 establishes that the geographical 
scope of the regulations is restricted to the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona. In 
Article 3, private hire vehicle services provided by vehicles with up to nine seats 
including the driver (PHV) are defined as services which are provided for hire in 
return for payment, which do not operate in accordance with linear routes or area 
networks or at pre-determined times, and for which payment is effected by means 
of a contract with a single user or in respect of the total capacity of the vehicle. 
Under Article 5, powers of administrative intervention in these services lie with 
the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona (the local authority), acting through the 
Instituto Metropolitano del Taxi (Metropolitan Taxi Council, ‘IMET’). 
Under Article 6 of the RVTC, the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona is responsible 
for issuing licences to provide such services, for reviewing the conditions 
governing the issue of licences and, where appropriate, for revoking licences. 
Oversight of the activity includes, amongst other things, regulating the activity, 
regulating the licensing system and regulating the penalties regime. 
Article 7 of the RVTC stipulates that, in order to provide the above service within 
the unitary urban transport management area comprising the territory of the 
Metropolitan Area of Barcelona, a licence must first be obtained which authorises 
the licence-holder in respect of each vehicle that is to provide the service. 
Pursuant to Article 7(4) and (5), services starting and ending within this 
geographical area may be provided only under a licence granted by the 
Metropolitan Area of Barcelona, and that licence must be held in conjunction with 
any other licences to be issued by other authorities pursuant to their powers. 
Article 10 of the RVTC, entitled ‘Determining the number of licences’, 
establishes that it is for the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona to fix the maximum 
number of licences at any given time, having regard to the need to ensure a 
sufficient supply of high-quality services to the public and to enable operators to 
remain profitable. 
The transitional provision in the RVTC recognises the validity of licences granted 
previously that were still in effect on the entry into force of the RVTC, and 
stipulates that they are governed by and subject to the new regulation. Under the 
first additional provision, the total number of licences is limited to those granted 
in accordance with the transitional provision. The same provision also establishes 
that the Metropolitan Taxi Council is responsible for proposing the 
commencement of the process for determining the maximum number of licences 
over and above those provided for in the transitional provision, and stipulates that 
PRESTIGE AND LIMOUSINE 
 
5 
the number of licences in force at any time may not exceed the ratio of one PHV 
licence to 30 taxi licences. 
Brief statement of the facts and the main proceedings 
1 For several years now, taxis and private hire vehicles (‘PHV’) have been 
competing to provide urban passenger transport services. 
2 While, strictly speaking, taxi services are not public services, they are services of 
general interest and, as such, they are subject to regulation and to restrictions on 
the number of licences, with tariffs being subject to prior administrative approval. 
3 The number of PHV licences is also limited. At the time of the events in question, 
PHVs were able to provide ‘interurban’ and ‘urban’ transport services throughout 
Spain (and, in particular, at autonomous community or regional level); tariffs did 
not require prior authorisation but were subject to a system in which the fare was 
agreed beforehand, so that the user knew the total cost of the service in advance 
and, where applicable, could pay for it electronically. Unlike taxis, PHVs could 
not use bus lanes, did not have ranks on the public highway and could not pick up 
fares in the street unless the service had been booked in advance via the relevant 
app. 
4 The applicant is one of the undertakings that provides PHV services within the 
Metropolitan Area of Barcelona. On 10 July 2018 the applicant lodged an 
administrative-law action against the PHV Regulation, seeking to have it annulled. 
The action was opposed by the local authority of the Metropolitan Area of 
Barcelona, whose Metropolitan Council had approved the regulation on 26 June 
2018. 
Main arguments of the parties to the main proceedings 
5 The applicant argues that, in adopting the RVTC, the Metropolitan Area of 
Barcelona was purely seeking to hinder the activities of PHV undertakings, with 
the sole aim of protecting the interests of the ‘taxi’ sector by imposing restrictive 
regulations at metropolitan level on PHV services, contrary to both domestic and 
EU law. 
6 In essence, the applicant considers that the RVTC has infringed the rights of 
freedom of establishment, free enterprise and property, in so far as: (i) it has, 
without justification, introduced a dual licensing system in that, in addition to the 
PHV licence (governed by national law and administered by the autonomous 
communities or regions) it has added a metropolitan licence, to be administered by 
the AMB, which imposes additional requirements on top of those provided for in 
the national PHV licensing regulations, and (ii) it has excluded the bulk of current 
and future PHV licence holders from obtaining a metropolitan licence by 
establishing a limit for which there is no reasonable justification. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-50/21 
 
6  
7 The defendant has taken the view that the RVTC is fully compatible with 
European Union law. 
Brief statement of the reasons for the request for a preliminary ruling 
8 In the view of this court, in so far as Article 48(3) of the LOTT ― which provides 
the legal basis for the restrictions imposed on the number of PHV licences by the 
RVTC ― establishes a limit on the number of PHV licences without the slightest 
justification, it could be deemed arbitrary. 
9 It could also be considered contrary: (i) to freedom of establishment under 
Article 49 TFEU, in that it affects all PHV undertakings established in the 
European Union which may at any time be interested in establishing themselves in 
Spain, which they would be prevented from doing by a combination of 
Article 48(3) of the LOTT and the number of existing PHV licences, and (ii) to 
the duty not to impede trade within the European Union, pursuant to 
Article 107(1) TFEU. 
10 The court has similar doubts as regards the compatibility of the ‘dual licensing’ 
system imposed on PHVs within the metropolitan area of Barcelona with the 
abovementioned precepts of EU law. 
11 At the time of the events, Article 91 of the LOTT established that PSV licences 
would supply the authorisation needed to provide ‘urban and interurban services 
throughout national territory’. The additional requirement to obtain a licence from 
the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona in order to provide urban PHV services within 
the metropolitan area (which is, moreover, subject to additional requirements) 
could perhaps be seen as a stratagem intended to minimise the competition with 
taxis previously provided by PHV services; and the court has serious doubts over 
the soundness or rigour of the supporting arguments that have been adduced. 
12 In its judgment number 921 of 4 June 2018 in appeal No 438/2017, the Tribunal 
Supremo (Supreme Court) also recognised that there was no justification for the 
1/30 ratio. 
13 Since the administrative-law action that is the subject of the main proceedings was 
lodged, the LOTT has been amended by Royal Decree-Law 13/2018 of 
28 September 2018 (BOE 236 of 29 September 2018), with the following results: 
(i) the 1/30 quota system provided for in Article 48(3) of the LOTT has been 
maintained and (ii) PHV services have been restricted to ‘interurban’ transport 
services, with urban or metropolitan PHV services being due to disappear within 
4 years. 
14 As far as present purposes are concerned, this has resulted in the approval of a 
new metropolitan regulation, which has also been challenged in this court. 
However, the interpretation of EU law sought in this application for a preliminary 
ruling is considered necessary in order to reach a decision in the present 
PRESTIGE AND LIMOUSINE 
 
7 
proceedings, particularly in the light of the overall strategic context that has been 
described, which may very well continue to apply. 
15 Moreover, there are 14 further actions on the same issue pending before this court, 
some of which have been lodged by undertakings that are linked to international 
platforms.