Case C-340/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 14 July 2014  — R.L. Trijber, trading as Amstelboats; other party: College van Burgemeester en Wethouders van Amsterdam
Date: 2014-07-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Netherlands, carriage of passengers, freedom to provide services, inland waterway transport, market access, right of establishment








C_2014339EN.01000802.xml










29.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 339/8





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 14 July 2014 — R.L. Trijber, trading as Amstelboats; other party: College van Burgemeester en Wethouders van Amsterdam
(Case C-340/14)
2014/C 339/09
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: R.L. Trijber, trading as Amstelboats

Other party: College van Burgemeester en Wethouders van Amsterdam

Questions referred







1.


Is the transportation of passengers by open sloop on the internal waterways of Amsterdam, with the main purpose of providing, for payment, tours and rentals for festive occasions, as in the case in the present proceedings, a service to which the provisions of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36) apply, regard being had to the exception set out in Article 2(2)(d) of that directive in respect of services in the field of transport?










2.


If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:
Does Chapter III of Directive 2006/123 apply to purely internal situations, or is the assessment of the question as to whether that chapter applies subject to the case-law of the Court of Justice concerning the Treaty provisions on freedom of establishment and the free movement of services in purely internal situations?










3.


If the answer to Question 2 is that the case-law of the Court of Justice concerning the Treaty provisions on freedom of establishment and the free movement of services in a purely internal situation applies to the assessment of the question as to whether Chapter III of Directive 2006/123 is applicable:






(a)


Should the national courts apply the provisions laid down in Chapter III of Directive 2006/123 in a situation such as that in the present case, in which the service provider has not established himself on a cross-border basis and does not offer services on a cross-border basis, but nevertheless relies on those provisions?










(b)


Is it relevant to the answer to that question that the services are expected to be provided mainly to residents of the Netherlands?










(c)


In order to answer that question, is it necessary to determine whether undertakings established in other Member States have shown or will show genuine interest in providing the same or comparable services?














4.


Does it follow from Article 11(1)(b) of Directive 2006/123 that, if the number of authorisations is limited by an overriding reason relating to the public interest, the duration of the validity of the authorisations must also be limited, regard being had also to the objective pursued by that directive of securing free access to the market for services, or is this a matter which lies within the discretion of the competent authority of the Member State?