Joined Cases C-340/14 and C-341/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — R.L. Trijber, trading as Amstelboats v College van burgemeester en wethouders van Amsterdam (C-340/14), J. Harmsen v Burgemeester van Amsterdam (C-341/14) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2006/123/EC — Services in the internal market — Leisure boating — Window prostitution businesses — Article 2(2)(d) — Scope — Not included — Services in the field of transport — Freedom of establishment — Authorisation scheme — Article 10(2)(c) — Conditions for granting the authorisation — Proportionality — Language requirement — Article 11(1)(b) — Duration of the authorisation — Restriction of the number of authorisations available — Overriding reason relating to the public interest)
Date: 2015-10-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: carriage of passengers, freedom to provide services, inland waterway transport, market access, pleasure craft, principle of proportionality, prostitution, right of establishment, single market, transport authorisation








C_2015381EN.01000802.xml










16.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 381/8





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — R.L. Trijber, trading as Amstelboats v College van burgemeester en wethouders van Amsterdam (C-340/14), J. Harmsen v Burgemeester van Amsterdam (C-341/14)
(Joined Cases C-340/14 and C-341/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2006/123/EC - Services in the internal market - Leisure boating - Window prostitution businesses - Article 2(2)(d) - Scope - Not included - Services in the field of transport - Freedom of establishment - Authorisation scheme - Article 10(2)(c) - Conditions for granting the authorisation - Proportionality - Language requirement - Article 11(1)(b) - Duration of the authorisation - Restriction of the number of authorisations available - Overriding reason relating to the public interest))
(2015/C 381/09)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: R.L. Trijber, trading as Amstelboats (C–340/14), J. Harmsen (C–341/14)

Defendants: College van burgemeester en wethouders van Amsterdam, Burgemeester van Amsterdam

Operative part of the judgment







1)


Article 2(2)(d) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market, must be interpreted as meaning that, subject to the checks to be carried out by the referring court, an activity, such as that which is the subject of the application for authorisation in the main proceedings, which consists in providing, for payment, a service of carrying passengers on a boat for a waterway tour of a city for event-related purposes, does not constitute a service in the ‘field of transport’ within the meaning of that provision which is excluded from the scope of that directive.










2)


Article 11(1)(b) of Directive 2006/123 must be interpreted as precluding the grant by the competent national authorities of authorisations for an unlimited period for the exercise of an activity such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where the number of authorisations granted for that purpose by those authorities is limited for overriding reasons relating to the public interest.










3)


Article 10(2)(c) of Directive 2006/123 must be interpreted as not precluding a measure, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the grant of authorisation for the exercise of an activity, such as that at issue in Case C-341/14, consisting in the operation of window prostitution businesses by renting rooms out in shifts is subject to the condition that the service provider is able to communicate with the recipients of those services, in this case prostitutes, where that condition is such as to ensure that the legitimate objective of general interest pursued — namely the prevention of criminal offences related to prostitution — is secured, and does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective, which is for the referring court to determine.






(1)  OJ C 339, 29.9.2014.