Case C-168/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Grupo Itevelesa SL, Applus Iteuve Technology, Certio ITV SL, Asistencia Técnica Industrial SAE v OCA Inspección Técnica de Vehículos SA, Generalidad de Cataluña (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 49 TFEU and 51 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Directive 2006/123/EC — Scope — Services in the internal market — Directive 2009/40/EC — Access to vehicle roadworthiness testing activities — Exercise by a private body — Activities connected with the exercise of official authority — Prior authorisation scheme — Overriding reasons relating to the public interest — Road safety — Territorial distribution — Minimum distance between roadworthiness testing centres — Maximum market share — Justification — Whether appropriate for the purpose of achieving the objective pursued — Coherence — Proportionality)
Date: 2015-10-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: principle of proportionality, right of establishment, road safety, roadworthiness tests, single market








C_2015406EN.01000601.xml










7.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 406/6






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Grupo Itevelesa SL, Applus Iteuve Technology, Certio ITV SL, Asistencia Técnica Industrial SAE v OCA Inspección Técnica de Vehículos SA, Generalidad de Cataluña
(Case C-168/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 49 TFEU and 51 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Directive 2006/123/EC - Scope - Services in the internal market - Directive 2009/40/EC - Access to vehicle roadworthiness testing activities - Exercise by a private body - Activities connected with the exercise of official authority - Prior authorisation scheme - Overriding reasons relating to the public interest - Road safety - Territorial distribution - Minimum distance between roadworthiness testing centres - Maximum market share - Justification - Whether appropriate for the purpose of achieving the objective pursued - Coherence - Proportionality))
(2015/C 406/05)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Grupo Itevelesa SL, Applus Iteuve Technology, Certio ITV SL, Asistencia Técnica Industrial SAE

Defendants: OCA Inspección Técnica de Vehículos SA, Generalidad de Cataluña

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 vehicle roadworthiness testing activities are excluded from the scope of application of that directive.










2.


The first paragraph of Article 51 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the activities of vehicle roadworthiness testing centres, such as those covered by the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, are not connected with the exercise of official authority within the meaning of that provision, notwithstanding the fact that the operators of those centres have the power to take vehicles off the road in cases where vehicles display, during the control, safety defects creating an imminent danger.










3.


Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the authorisation for an undertaking or group of undertakings to open a vehicle roadworthiness testing centre subject to the condition, first, that there is a minimum distance between that centre and centres belonging to that undertaking or group of undertakings which are already authorised and, secondly, that that undertaking or group of undertakings will, if such an authorisation is granted, not hold a market share in excess of 50 %, unless it is established that that condition is genuinely appropriate in order to achieve the objectives of consumer protection and road safety and does not go beyond what is necessary for that purpose, these being matters for the referring court to determine.






(1)  
            OJ C 175, 10.6.2014.