Case C-400/08: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 March 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Freedom of establishment — Article 43 EC — National legislation concerning the establishment of shopping centres in Catalonia — Restrictions — Justifications — Proportionality)
Date: 2011-03-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: action for failure to fulfil an obligation, autonomous community, business location, consumer protection, economic discrimination, regions of Spain, shopping centre, small retailer, trade licence








C_2011152EN.01000201.xml










21.5.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 152/2





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 March 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
(Case C-400/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom of establishment - Article 43 EC - National legislation concerning the establishment of shopping centres in Catalonia - Restrictions - Justifications - Proportionality)
2011/C 152/02
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Traversa and R. Vidal Puig, acting as Agents, C. Fernández Vicién and A. Pereda Miquel, abogados)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, acting as Agent)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: J. Bering Liisberg and R. Holdgaard, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Article 43 EC — Restrictions on the establishment of shopping centres — Licences

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 EC by adopting and/or by maintaining in force the following provisions:






—


Article 4(1) of Law 18/2005 on trading establishments (Ley 18/2005 de equipamientos comerciales) of 27 December 2005, in so far as it prohibits the opening of large retail establishments outside consolidated urban areas of a limited number of municipalities;










—


Articles 7 and 10(2) of the Annex to Decree 379/2006 approving the new sectoral territorial plan for trading establishments (Decreto 379/2006 por el que se aprueba el Plan territorial sectorial de equipamientos comerciales) of 10 October 2006, and Annex 1 thereto, in so far as those provisions restrict the opening of new hypermarkets to a limited number of districts and provide that such new hypermarkets are not to account for more than 9 % of estimated expenses for staple supplies and 7 % of estimated expenses for non-staple supplies;










—


the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Law 7/1996 on retail commerce (Ley 7/1996, de ordenación del comercio minorista) of 15 January 1996, Article 8 of Law 18/2005 on trading establishments of 27 December 2005 and Articles 31(4) and 33(2) of Decree 378/2006, implementing Law 18/2005 (Decreto 378/2006 por el que se desarolla la Ley 18/2005), of 10 October 2006, in so far as those provisions require the application of ceilings as regards market share and the impact on existing retail trade, above which it is impossible to open new large retail establishments and/or new medium-sized retail establishments; and










—


Article 26 of Decree 378/2006 implementing Law 18/2005 of 10 October 2006, in so far as in specifying the composition of the Comisión de Equipamientos Comerciales (Retail Facilities Committee) it ensures that existing retail trade is represented and fails to ensure that associations active in the field of environmental protection, or interest groups working towards consumer protection, are represented;














2.


Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the action in so far as it concerns the compatibility with Article 43 EC of Article 33(5) and (7) of Decree 378/2006, implementing Law 18/2005, of 10 October 2006;










3.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










4.


Orders the European Commission, the Kingdom of Spain and the Kingdom of Denmark to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 285, 8.11.2008.