Case C-360/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 13 July 2015 — College van Burgemeester en Wethouders van de gemeente Amersfoort; other party: X BV
Date: 2015-07-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative formalities, building permit, direct applicability, freedom to provide services, telecommunications equipment








C_2015346EN.01000401.xml










19.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 346/4





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 13 July 2015 — College van Burgemeester en Wethouders van de gemeente Amersfoort; other party: X BV
(Case C-360/15)
(2015/C 346/04)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: College van Burgemeester en Wethouders van de gemeente Amersfoort

Other party to the proceedings: X BV

Questions referred







(1)


Must Article 2(3) of Directive 2006/123/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market be interpreted as meaning that that provision applies to the levying of charges (‘leges’) by an authority of a Member State in respect of the processing of an application for consent with regard to the timing, location and manner of performance of excavation works associated with the installation of cables for a public electronic communications network?










(2)


Must Chapter III of Directive 2006/123/EC … be interpreted as meaning that it also applies in purely internal situations?










(3)


Must Directive 2006/123/EC…, against the background of recital 9 in the preamble thereto, be interpreted as meaning that that directive does not apply to national rules which require the intention to carry out excavation work in connection with the installation, maintenance and removal of cables for a public electronic telecommunications network to be notified to the municipal council, and on the basis of which the latter is not competent to prohibit that work but is, however, competent to impose conditions in respect of the location, timing and manner of performance of the work and of the promotion of shared use of facilities and the coordination of the work with the managers of other construction works on the land?










(4)


Must Article 4(6) of Directive 2006/123/EC … be interpreted as meaning that that provision applies to a consent decision with regard to the location, timing and manner of performance of excavation work in connection with the installation of cables for a public electronic telecommunications network, without the relevant authority of a Member State being competent to prohibit that work as such?










(5)








(A)


If, given the answers to the foregoing questions, Article 13(2) of Directive 2006/123/EC … is applicable in the present case, does that provision have direct effect?










(B)


If the answer to Question 5(A) is in the affirmative, does Article 13(2) of Directive 2006/123/EC … mean that the costs which may be charged may be calculated on the basis of the estimated costs for all application procedures, or on the basis of the costs of all applications such as the one at issue here, or on the basis of individual applications?










(C)


If the answer to Question 5(A) is in the affirmative, according to which criteria must indirect and fixed costs be allocated to authorisation applications in accordance with Article 13(2) of Directive 2006/123/EC …?










(1)  OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36.