Joined Cases C-724/18 and C-727/18: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 September 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Cali Apartments SCI (C-724/18) and HX (C-727/18) v Procureur général près la cour d’appel de Paris and Ville de Paris (References for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2006/123/EC — Scope — Repeated short-term letting of furnished premises to a transient clientele which does not take up residence there — National legislation imposing a prior authorisation scheme for certain specific municipalities and making those municipalities responsible for defining the conditions for granting the authorisations provided for by that scheme — Article 4(6) — Concept of ‘authorisation scheme’ — Article 9 — Justification — Insufficient supply of affordable long-term rental housing — Proportionality — Article 10 — Requirements relating to the conditions for granting authorisations)
Date: 2020-09-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: hiring, principle of proportionality, property leasing, provision of services, residence permit, trade licence








C_2020390EN.01000401.xml










16.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 390/4






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 September 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Cali Apartments SCI (C-724/18) and HX (C-727/18) v Procureur général près la cour d’appel de Paris and Ville de Paris
(Joined Cases C-724/18 and C-727/18) (1)

(References for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2006/123/EC - Scope - Repeated short-term letting of furnished premises to a transient clientele which does not take up residence there - National legislation imposing a prior authorisation scheme for certain specific municipalities and making those municipalities responsible for defining the conditions for granting the authorisations provided for by that scheme - Article 4(6) - Concept of ‘authorisation scheme’ - Article 9 - Justification - Insufficient supply of affordable long-term rental housing - Proportionality - Article 10 - Requirements relating to the conditions for granting authorisations)
(2020/C 390/05)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants in cassation: Cali Apartments SCI (C-724/18) and HX (C-727/18)

Respondents in cassation: Procureur général près la cour d’appel de Paris and Ville de Paris

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Articles 1 and 2 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 that directive applies to legislation of a Member State relating to activities consisting in the repeated short-term letting, for remuneration, whether on a professional or non-professional basis, of furnished accommodation to a transient clientele which does not take up residence there;










2.


Article 4 of Directive 2006/123 must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation which makes the exercise of certain activities consisting in the letting of residential premises subject to prior authorisation is covered by the concept of ‘authorisation scheme’ within the meaning of paragraph 6 of that article;










3.


Article 9(1)(b) and (c) of Directive 2006/123 must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation which, for reasons intended to ensure a sufficient supply of affordable long-term rental housing, makes certain activities consisting in the repeated short-term letting, for remuneration, of furnished accommodation to a transient clientele which does not take up residence there subject to a prior authorisation scheme applicable in certain municipalities where rent pressure is particularly severe is (i) justified by an overriding reason relating to the public interest consisting in combating the rental housing shortage and (ii) proportionate to the objective pursued, inasmuch as that objective cannot be attained by means of a less restrictive measure, in particular because an a posteriori inspection would take place too late to be genuinely effective;










4.


Article 10(2) of Directive 2006/123 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation introducing a scheme which makes the exercise of certain activities consisting in the letting, for remuneration, of furnished accommodation subject to prior authorisation, which is based on criteria relating to the fact that the premises in question are let ‘repeatedly for short periods to a transient clientele which does not take up residence there’ and which gives the local authorities the power to specify, within the framework laid down by that legislation, the conditions for granting the authorisations provided for by that scheme in the light of social diversity objectives and according to the characteristics of the local housing markets and the need to avoid exacerbating the housing shortage, making those authorisations subject, if necessary, to an offset requirement in the form of the concurrent conversion of non-residential premises into housing, provided that those granting conditions are in line with the requirements laid down by that provision and that that requirement can be met under conditions that are transparent and accessible.






(1)  OJ C 35, 28.1.2019.