Summary;Order — ECLI:EU:C:2026:82
Date: 2026-01-27
Language of the case: Romanian
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Romania

Summary C-439/25 – 1 
Case C-439/25 * 
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: 
4 July 2025 
Referring court: 
Curtea de Apel Timișoara (Romania) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
10 June 2025 
Applicant for revision: 
OMV Petrom Marketing SRL 
Respondents: 
Compania Națională de Administrare a Infrastructurii Rutiere SA 
ZR 
LN 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Action for revision brought by the applicant for revision and intervener at first 
instance, OMV Petrom Marketing SRL (‘OPM’), against the decision of 
5 November 2024 delivered by the Curtea de Apel Timișoara (Court of Appeal, 
Timișoara, Romania) (‘the Curtea de Apel’) against the respondents Compania 
Națională de Administrare a Infrastructurii Rutiere SA (‘CNAIR’), ZR and LN. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
On the basis of Article 267 TFEU, interpretation is sought of Article 19(d) [and] 
Article 39(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013, Article 8a of Regulation (EC) 
 
* Language of the case: Romanian. 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-439/25 
 
2  
No 561/2006 [and] Article 56 TFEU, as well as the provisions of EU law on the 
freedom to provide services as a whole 
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1. Do the provisions of Article 19(d) [and] Article 39(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) 
[No 1315/2013] and the provisions of Article 8a of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006, 
as well as the [EU] legislation on secure parking and rest areas serving motorways 
as a whole, preclude national legislation which does not permit the construction of 
such parking areas on privately owned land? 
2. Do the provisions of [recital 6 of Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013] preclude 
national legislation which does not permit the construction of such parking areas 
on privately owned land? 
3. Do the provisions of Article 56 TFEU and the [EU] legislation on the 
freedom to provide services as a whole apply where the applicant for revision 
OMV Petrom Marketing SRL is a service provider of Romanian nationality 
wishing to provide services connected with road transport on Romanian 
motorways to recipients who may be nationals of other Member States [of the 
European Union]? 
4. If the provisions of Article 56 TFEU and the [EU] legislation on the freedom 
to provide services as a whole are applicable in the present case, does that 
legislation preclude national legislation which does not permit the construction of 
service areas or the provision of such services – secure parking areas serving 
motorways – on privately owned land? 
Provisions of European Union law relied on 
Article 56 TFEU; 
Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road 
transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) 
No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85: Article 8a; 
Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
11 December 2013 on Union guidelines for the development of the trans-
European transport network and repealing Decision No 661/2010/EU: recital 6, 
Article 19(d) [and] Article 39(2)(c)[.] 
OMV PETROM MARKETING SRL 
 
3 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Constituția României (Constitution of Romania): Article 148(2)[,] read in 
conjunction with Article 20(2) 
Legea nr. 554/2004 a contenciosului administrativ (Law No 554/2004 on 
administrative proceedings) (Monitorul Oficial al României (Official Journal of 
Romania), Part I, No 1154 of 7 December 2004) (‘the Law on Administrative 
Proceedings’): Article 21(1), according to which the handing down of final 
decisions that infringe the principle of the primacy of EU law enshrined in the 
Constitution constitutes grounds for revision, in addition to those provided for in 
the Codul de procedură civilă (Code of Civil Procedure). 
Decizia nr. 45/2016 din 12 decembrie 2016, pronunțată de Înalta Curte de Casație 
și Justiție – Completul pentru dezlegarea unor chestiuni de drept (Decision 
No 45/2016 of 12 December 2016 delivered by the High Court of Cassation and 
Justice – Panel for Preliminary Rulings on Questions of Law), published in the 
Monitorul Oficial [al României], Part I, No 386 of 23 May 2017, according to 
which, when interpreting and applying Article 21(2)(1) of [the Law on 
Administrative Proceedings], an action for revision based on decisions of the 
Court of Justice of the European Union is admissible irrespective of the date of 
delivery of those decisions or of whether or not, in the main proceedings, the pre-
existing provisions of EU law infringed by the decision in respect of which 
revision is sought were relied on. 
Ordonanța Guvernului nr. 43/1997 privind regimul drumurilor (Government 
Order No 43/1997 on the rules governing roads) (republished in the Monitorul 
Oficial al României, Part I, No 237 of 29 June 1998, as amended and 
supplemented) (‘OG nr. 43/1997’). 
Article 2(1) to (3): 
‘(1) Roads are part of the national transport system. 
(2) Roads are means of land communication specially equipped for the 
movement of vehicles and pedestrians. 
(3) The following form an integral part of the road: road boundaries and hard 
shoulders, the road surface and infrastructure, bridges, small bridges, canals, 
ditches, viaducts, intersections at different levels, underpasses, tunnels and other 
structures, defence, protection and reinforcement constructions, pavements, cycle 
lanes, parking, stopping and rest areas, toll stations, access lanes, service roads 
equipped for the maintenance of motorways, road signs and other traffic safety 
equipment, intelligent transport systems and related installations, service or 
control areas, areas within the intersection visibility triangle, areas between the 
motorway and/or the road and access lanes, environmental protection systems, 
land and vegetation in the road area, and safety barriers, with the exception of 
buffer zones’[.] 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-439/25 
 
4  
Article 6(1)(a): 
‘(1) Roads of national interest are State-owned public property and include 
national roads which ensure connections with the country’s capital, with district 
capitals, [and] with destinations of national interest, [as well as] connections 
between those places and connections with neighbouring countries, and can be 
classified as: 
a) motorways – high-capacity, high-speed roads, reserved exclusively for the 
use of motor vehicles, which do not serve properties bordering thereon, provided 
with two one-way carriageways separated by a central dividing strip, having at 
least two traffic lanes in each direction of traffic and an emergency lane, with 
limited-access intersections at different levels, where motor vehicles are 
authorised to enter and exit exclusively via specially equipped transition points’[.] 
Article 37(1), (2) and (7): 
‘(1) Ring roads – located, as a general rule, outside residential areas – shall be 
constructed, on the basis of traffic studies, to reduce traffic congestion in 
residential areas, in order to protect the environment and improve safety 
conditions for traffic on the high-speed road, European “E” highway and national 
road networks. 
(2) Access to the ring roads provided for in paragraph 1 shall be gained 
exclusively via roads leading to intersections adapted to traffic volumes. 
[…] 
(7) By way of derogation from the provisions of paragraph 2, routes may be 
opened on ring roads to provide direct access to traffic facilities intended as secure 
parking areas, which ensure that users of public roads are able to stop, park and 
take rest periods under safe conditions, in accordance with the requirements laid 
down in the EU regulations and directives in force. Access to those facilities shall 
reflect the geometric characteristics laid down by the design standards in force’[.] 
Article 47(3): 
‘3. On the high-speed road and motorway network, routes may be opened to 
provide access to traffic facilities intended as secure parking areas, which ensure 
that users of public roads are able to stop, park and take rest periods under safe 
conditions, in accordance with the requirements laid down in the EU regulations 
and directives in force. Access to those facilities shall reflect the geometric 
characteristics laid down by the design standards in force’[.] 
Ordonanța de urgență a Guvernului nr. 195/2002 privind circulația pe drumurile 
publice (Government Emergency Order No 195/2002 on Public Road Traffic) 
(republished in the Monitorul Oficial al României, Part I, No 670 of 3 August 
2006, as amended and supplemented) (‘OUG nr. 195/2002’) 
OMV PETROM MARKETING SRL 
 
5 
Article 6(5): 
For the purposes of this Emergency Order, the following definitions shall apply: 
5. motorway – a national high capacity, high-speed road, distinguished by special 
signage, reserved exclusively for the use of motor vehicles, with or without trailer, 
which does not serve properties bordering thereon, provided with two one-way 
carriageways separated by a central dividing strip or, exceptionally, by other 
means, having, except at special points or temporarily, at least two traffic lanes in 
each direction of traffic and an emergency lane, with limited-access intersections 
at different levels, where motor vehicles are authorised to enter and exit 
exclusively via specially equipped transition points’[.] 
Standardul SR 4032-1:2001 (Standard SR 4032-1:2001), according to which: 
‘Service areas are structures adjoining a motorway intended to provide users with 
the opportunity to rest and recover and offering catering services and amenities 
such as bars, catering facilities, overnight lodging, shops, and so on, as well as 
areas guaranteeing normal operating conditions for motor vehicles (fuel stations 
and motor vehicle maintenance and repair shops)’. 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 The married couple ZR and LN were the owners of two plots of land situated in 
the municipality of Pecica, in the district of Arad (‘the land’), and took various 
measures to obtain approval of an urban area development plan drawn up to 
regulate a project consisting of the ‘construction of a secure parking area, a fuel 
station, a fast recharging station for electric vehicles, [and] an area offering 
hospitality services and amenities’ for both directions of traffic on the A1 
motorway ( ‘the project’), approved on 23 December 2020 by decision of the 
municipal council of Pecica. 
2 As part of the procedure for authorising the project, acts issued by CNAIR and by 
the Direcția Regională de Drumuri și Poduri Timișoara (Timișoara Regional 
Directorate for Roads and Bridges) (‘the DRDPT’), listed below, were obtained: 
– opinion of 16 July 2020 ‘UAP (urban area plan) – Construction of a secure 
parking area, a fuel station, a fast recharging station for electric vehicles, [and] 
an area offering hospitality services and amenities, in the A1 motorway area 
between km 569 + 442-km 569 + 770 on the right and between km 569 + 865-
km 569 + 865 on the left’, drawn up by CNAIR – central unit, involving a 
permit for access from the private property of the couple ZR and LN to the A1 
motorway on the Arad-Nădlac section; 
– preliminary contracts of 21 October 2021 issued by the DRDPT; 
– authorisations for installation and/or access to the public road area of 
13 December 2021 issued by the DRDPT, 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-439/25 
 
6  
(collectively, ‘the contested acts’) 
3 On 15 December 2021, the mayor of the town of Pecica issued planning 
permissions for the construction of the parking area and an OPM fuel station (‘the 
planning permissions’). 
4 On 17 December 2021, ZR and LN concluded a contract with OPM for the sale of 
the land, by which OPM also acquired all the rights arising from the authorisations 
and permissions obtained/concluded by the sellers in respect of that land. 
5 OPM commenced construction work on that land in accordance with the planning 
permissions and took various measures to obtain formal confirmation that 
ownership of the contracts relating to the use of and access to the public road area 
entered into by CNAIR – the DRDPT and ZR on 14 December 2021 (‘the 
contracts’) had been transferred to it. 
6 By writ of summons entered in the register of the Tribunalul Arad (Regional 
Court, Arad, Romania) (‘the Tribunalul’ or ‘the court ruling on the merits’) on 
10 October 2022, CNAIR requested the following, as against the defendants ZR 
and LN: 
– that the contested acts be fully set aside as being unlawful, that the contracts be 
set aside/declared invalid as having been concluded on the basis of unlawful 
administrative acts, and that all other subsequent acts 
issued/obtained/concluded on the basis of the contested acts also be set aside; 
– that the defendants be ordered to demolish/dismantle, at their own expense, all 
the works carried out, on the basis of the unlawful administrative acts, on 
public road infrastructure and elements thereof, as defined in Article 2(3) of 
OG nr. 43/1997, and to restore the land/road to their former state. 
7 In those proceedings, by way of a principal application to intervene, the intervener 
OPM requested, in its own interests, that the Tribunalul: 
– dismiss CNAIR’s application for annulment on the ground that it was 
unfounded and order the applicant CNAIR to pay compensation in the amount 
of EUR 16 548 365, as the value of the investment, together with the counter-
value of the loss of profit caused to the intervener by the challenging and by the 
annulment of the contested acts, issued legally, after they had fallen within the 
scope of civil law, and to update the amount of the damage to take into account 
the rate of inflation; 
– order CNAIR to pay statutory default interest between traders calculated from 
the time when the investment was made until actual payment of the sums due 
by way of damages. 
8 At the first stage of the proceedings, the Tribunalul dismissed the action for 
annulment and its decision was appealed to the Curtea de Apel. On 26 January 
OMV PETROM MARKETING SRL 
 
7 
2024, the Curtea de Apel set aside that decision and referred the case back to the 
Tribunalul for a new hearing. 
9 At the second stage of the proceedings, by civil judgment of 3 April 2024, the 
Tribunalul dismissed as unfounded the administrative action brought by CNAIR 
against the defendants ZR and LN, upheld in part the principal application to 
intervene made by the intervener OPM, dismissing the applicant’s action as 
unfounded, and dismissed, as having become devoid of purpose, OPM’s head of 
claim concerning rights invoked against CNAIR. 
10 The Tribunalul was, in essence, of the view that it is clear from the combined 
provisions of Article 37 and Article 47(3) of OG nr. 43/1997 that, in the high-
speed road and motorway network, routes may be opened to provide access to 
traffic facilities intended as secure parking areas, even where those parking areas 
are situated on privately owned land, as there is no provision requiring such 
parking areas to be constructed solely on the public highway, as CNAIR 
maintains. 
11 The court ruling on the merits observed that CNAIR confuses service areas – 
which, in accordance with Regulation PD 162/2002 regulating the development of 
extra-urban motorways, are defined as motorway structures, are already provided 
for at the motorway design stage and are intended for all motorway users – with 
safe and secure parking areas, which refer to places intended for commercial 
users, enabling them to avoid parking areas considered inadequate, whereas 
Article 47(3) of OG nr. 43/1997 refers to roads providing access to secure parking 
areas, and not to service areas, which are included in motorway projects. 
12 In addition, that court held that, in addition to the need to harmonise Romanian 
legislation with EC legislation, the reason for the introduction of the exception 
provided for in Article 47(3) of OG nr. 43/1997 was precisely to allow safe and 
secure parking areas – areas which are absolutely necessary for that type of road – 
to be connected directly to motorways, thereby ensuring road safety and the flow 
of traffic under favourable conditions, and that the legislative text does not 
prohibit connection to the motorway of roads providing access to safe and secure 
parking areas built on privately owned land. 
13 CNAIR brought an appeal against that decision before the Curtea de Apel, while 
OPM brought a cross-appeal. 
14 By civil decision of 5 November 2024, the Curtea de Apel Timișoara – Secția 
Contencios Administrativ și Fiscal (Court of Appeal, Timișoara – Division for 
Administrative and Tax Matters) upheld CNAIR’s appeal, set aside the decision 
under appeal and, ruling on the substance, upheld the initial action brought by 
CNAIR and, consequently: 
– ordered that the contested acts and the contracts be set aside; 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-439/25 
 
8  
– ordered ZR and LN to dismantle, at their own expense, all the works carried 
out on the public road and elements thereof, thereby restoring the public road to 
its former state; 
– dismissed the principal application to intervene made by the intervener OPM; 
– dismissed the cross-appeal brought by the intervener OPM. 
15 In the grounds of its decision, the Curtea de Apel held, in the light of the 
considerations of the Tribunalul set out in paragraphs 10 to 12 above, that the 
outcome of the action at first instance was based on a misinterpretation of 
Article 37 and Article 47(3) of OG nr. 43/1997. 
16 According to the Curtea de Apel, in the first place, neither Article 37(7) nor 
Article 47(3) of OG nr. 43/1997 contains express provisions relating to the 
connection to the motorway of roads providing access to safe and secure parking 
areas built on privately owned land. That court thus held that, in view of the fact 
that the contested acts do not concern only the construction of a parking area, 
Article 47(3) [of OG nr. 43/1997] is not applicable in the present case. 
17 In the second place, the Curtea de Apel held that the [Tribunalul], in applying 
those statutory provisions, failed to have regard to the fact that they did not 
contain any reference to the nature of the land, public or private, to which access 
roads may be opened for traffic facilities intended as secure parking areas, with 
the result that their application should have been corroborated by other legal 
provisions on the rules governing roads and public road traffic. 
18 The Curtea de Apel cited in that regard Article 2(1) to (3) and Article 6(1)(a) of 
OG nr. 43/1997, Standard SR 4032-1:2001, Article 6(5) of OUG nr. 195/2002 and 
Article 17(3)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013. 
19 Referring also to the provisions of Article 18 and Article 39(2) and (3) of 
Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013, the Curtea de Apel held that ‘a motorway is a 
road specially designed and built for motor traffic, which does not serve properties 
bordering thereon and which requires, inter alia, the construction of service areas, 
which also include secure parking areas complying with the definition stated in 
Standard SR 4032-1:2001, areas which are an integral part of roads of national 
interest and which can therefore be found only on State-owned public property, as 
[CNAIR] has rightly pointed out’. 
20 At the same time, that court observed that OPM’s line of argument that the 
project, about 90% of which it has already built, is entirely in line with the 
standards that Romania is required to meet on the basis of Regulation (EU) 
No 1315/2013, given that the Romanian State has not taken any concrete 
measures in that regard and that no secure parking areas currently exist that meet 
European standards, is not a line of argument capable of legitimising acts issued in 
breach of the provisions of legislation on the rules governing roads. 
OMV PETROM MARKETING SRL 
 
9 
21 The Curtea de Apel also held that the claim made by the couple ZR and LN that 
the structure to be created is only a secure parking area is not correct, given that 
what was authorised by the contested acts is a service area, namely a secure 
parking area, a fuel station, a fast recharging station for electric vehicles, [and] an 
area offering hospitality services and amenities, with the secure parking areas 
being included in the service area. 
22 It then observed that, contrary to the view taken by the Tribunalul, EU legislation 
is disposed to permit that type of service, and constructions of this kind must be 
installed on public land because, as they are intended for vehicles travelling on 
motorways and national roads, the State is responsible for the safety of those 
vehicles, [as well as] the passengers and the goods which they transport, and the 
State is unable to conduct any monitoring activities when those areas are 
constructed on privately owned land. 
23 As regards the cross-appeal, the Curtea de Apel emphasised that none of the 
provisions of EU law relied on by OPM requires the authorities of a Member State 
to allow openings to motorways in favour of private beneficiaries; on the contrary, 
EU legislation, including Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013, establishes the State’s 
responsibility for the safety of vehicles travelling on motorways and national 
roads, [as well as] the passengers and the goods which they transport, which 
implies that the State has a right and an obligation to exercise control over roads 
of national interest, which also include service areas. 
24 On 10 March 2025, the intervener OPM, in its own interest, requested, by an 
application for revision registered before the referring court under Article 21 of 
[the Law on Administrative Proceedings], the revision of the civil decision of 
5 November 2024 delivered by the Curtea de Apel, claiming that it had been 
delivered in breach of the principle of the primacy of EU law, enshrined in 
Article 148(2) of the Constitution of Romania (republished), read in conjunction 
with Article 20(2) thereof. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
25 OPM claims that the Curtea de Apel decided the dispute in breach of the 
provisions of Regulation No 561/2006 [and] Regulation No 1315/2013, as well as 
the principle of the free movement of services, governed by Article 56 TFEU, and 
requests that a reference for a preliminary ruling be made to the Court of Justice 
of the European Union. 
26 In its view, the effect of the Curtea de Apel’s decision is that investors cannot 
provide services on their own initiative, making them dependent on the 
availability of land belonging to the Romanian State. 
27 According to OPM, such an interpretation is contrary to the free movement of 
services and constitutes an unjustified restriction. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-439/25 
 
10  
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
28 As regards the first question, the referring court has noted that the provisions 
referred to therein do not contain obligations or requirements relating to the nature 
of the ownership – public or private – of the land on which the parking or rest 
areas to be built on motorways are installed. The obligation to construct parking 
and rest areas offering an appropriate level of safety and security does not appear 
to have the effect of prohibiting EU Member States from providing for the 
construction of areas of that type exclusively on public land. 
29 However, recalling the provisions of point 6 of the Court’s recommendations to 
national courts and tribunals relating to the submission of requests for a 
preliminary ruling and the fact that the decision to be delivered in the present case 
will be final, the referring court takes the view that it is necessary to refer the 
matter to the Court of Justice, given that it is not possible to identify the correct 
interpretation of the rule of law at issue in a manner that leaves no scope for any 
reasonable doubt. The referring court states that it could have had recourse to a 
grammatical interpretation, but, in the absence of relevant case-law of the Court, it 
has not had sufficient guidance for a systematic interpretation, having regard to 
the relevant EU legislation as a whole. 
30 In particular, the referring court emphasises that, although the EU legislation 
relied on by OPM does not expressly refer to the nature of the ownership of the 
land on which those secure parking or rest areas are constructed, it also does not 
appear to provide for any prohibition on legislating, at the level of the Member 
States of the European Union, that such areas be constructed exclusively on public 
land. On the other hand, it is not sufficient to note that EU law does not contain a 
prohibition on the construction of such areas on privately owned land, as it is 
necessary to determine whether the EU legislation precludes national legislation 
which prohibits the construction of such areas on privately owned land. 
31 Consequently, as the referring court is not certain that those provisions of EU law 
may not be interpreted in such a way as to recognise a right to build secure 
parking areas serving motorways on privately owned land, it refers the first 
question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling in order to obtain 
clarification as to the alleged conflict between EU law and national law, which 
would be grounds for declaring the revision admissible. 
32 As regards the second question referred for a preliminary ruling, the referring 
court highlights the general nature of the wording of recital 6 of Regulation (EU) 
No 1315/2013, which provides that Member States are still the principal entity in 
charge of creating and maintaining transport infrastructure, but also highlights the 
important role acquired by private-sector partners. 
33 The referring court notes that that provision neither establishes nor refers, even by 
way of example, to any rights conferred on those persons with regard to the 
creation of a trans-European transport network and that OPM has not put forward 
OMV PETROM MARKETING SRL 
 
11 
any argument to show that the acquisition of the important role of those private 
entities would make it impossible to prohibit the construction of connected areas 
on privately owned land. Furthermore, recital 6 of Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013 
underlines that the Member States are still the principal entity in charge of 
creating and maintaining transport infrastructure and that ‘the trans-European 
transport network policy has to take into account the evolution of transport policy 
and infrastructure ownership’, which implies taking into account the Romanian 
State’s right of ownership over road transport infrastructures, even if the 
participation of private investors is permitted. 
34 As regards the third and fourth questions referred for a preliminary ruling, the 
referring court refers to the arguments of OPM relating to the relevance to the 
present case of the provisions of Article 56 TFEU, according to which ‘the impact 
of that article is obvious, given that the recipients of the services provided by the 
owner of that type of construction will also be nationals of other Member States of 
the European Union – given that the very purpose of the EU legislation relating to 
those parking areas as a whole is to improve the road network at European level’ 
and ‘the manner in which the court ruling on the merits decided the case is in fact 
in breach of the right of the applicant for revision OPM to provide services to 
recipients from the Member States of the European Union, in the absence of 
objective justification’. 
35 The referring court observes, however, that OPM is a Romanian legal person 
which provides services in the territory of the Romanian State, which leads to that 
situation being classified as purely internal to the Romanian State, particularly 
given that nationals of other Member States of the European Union who could 
benefit from the parking services – that may be provided by OPM – do not travel 
to Romania or through Romania in order to receive those services, which are 
ancillary to the passage of the motor vehicle. From that perspective, the 
prohibition on installing secure parking areas on privately owned land adjacent to 
motorways constitutes a measure which applies, in the same way, to all providers 
of such services, irrespective of their nationality or the nationality of the recipients 
of those services, as it constitutes a measure of general application and does not 
appear to constitute a condition capable of indirectly favouring service providers 
established in Romania – OPM is in fact a service provider of Romanian 
nationality –, excluding discrimination on the basis of that criterion. 
36 However, in view of the fundamental nature of the freedom to provide services in 
the European Union and the complexity of that area, taking into account the fact 
that EU legislation contains a series of rules on road transport – including the 
regulations relied on by OPM – the referring court takes the view that it is useful 
to raise a question relating to the impact of Article 56 TFEU in the present case, 
where OPM is a provider of services of Romanian nationality, that wishes to 
provide road transport services on Romania’s motorways to recipients who may 
be nationals of other Member States of the European Union. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-439/25 
 
12  
37 At the same time, if that question is answered in the affirmative, the referring 
court is also of the view that it is necessary to clarify whether a prohibition on the 
construction on privately owned land of service areas of the same type as the 
secure parking areas installed on motorways is in breach of the provisions of 
Article 56 TFEU and the EU legislation on the freedom to provide services as a 
whole.