Case C-500/25, Staatsanwaltschaft Heilbronn: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Heilbronn (Germany) lodged on 22 July 2025 – Criminal proceedings against RX
Date: 2025-07-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, export, free movement of goods, freedom to provide services, liberalisation of the market, motor vehicle, mutual recognition principle, road transport, trade restriction, vehicle registration








C_202505573EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5573


27.10.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Heilbronn (Germany) lodged on 22 July 2025 – Criminal proceedings against RX


(Case C-500/25, Staatsanwaltschaft Heilbronn)

(C/2025/5573)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Heilbronn

Parties to the main proceedings

RX

Questions referred







1.


Does intra-Community commercial trade in brand-new motor vehicles, which have not yet been properly registered and bear a professional number plate of a Member State, fall within the scope of the fundamental freedoms laid down in the TFEU, in particular, the freedom to provide services in the field of transport under Articles 56, 58(1) and 90 et seq. thereof?
If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative:










2.


Must the first sentence of Article 56 TFEU and Article 58(1) TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 91(1)(a) and Article 92 TFEU, be interpreted as having the objective of liberalising and harmonising the commercial internal transport market on the basis of an open market economy with free competition and equality of competition, that is to say, eliminating inhibitory national interventions, and as establishing, in that regard, a power to adopt primary legislation in favour of the European Parliament and the Council, in so far as restrictive provisions in the field of transport are concerned?
If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative:










3.


Must the first sentence of Article 56 TFEU and Article 58(1) TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 91(1)(a) TFEU, and, in particular, Article 92 thereof, be interpreted as meaning that – in the absence of an EU regulation or a directive on harmonisation in the field of mutual recognition of professional number plates,






(a)


no Member State may – without the unanimous assent of the Council – adopt provisions in the field of transport policy which, in their direct or indirect effect on transport operators of other Member States, make the provisions of national law in force until now less favourable as compared with transport operators who are nationals of that State (prohibition of deterioration or at least standstill obligation)?










(b)


the abovementioned articles preclude the application of national legislation – such as the applicable fourth sentence of Paragraph 20(1) of the Fahrzeug-Zulassungsverordnung (Vehicle Registration Regulation; ‘the FZV’), former version, at issue in the main proceedings (retained in the fourth sentence of Paragraph 46(1) of the FZV, new version) – under which, in accordance with previously indiscriminately formulated legislation applied indiscriminately, in practice and in the case-law, to all cases of cross-border transport (export/transit/import), a general prohibition on ‘remote registration’ would be (re)established under the guise of an alleged express clarification (‘retrograde step’)?










(c)


Having regard to the fundamental sovereignty of the Member States in the field of the proper registration of vehicles, must the questions, in any event, be answered in the affirmative if the prohibition on ‘remote registration’ were to apply indiscriminately to professional number plates of other Member States? In other words, if, in the case of the commercial transportation of brand-new motor vehicles, which have not yet been properly registered, from the Federal Republic of Germany to other Member States (export), the possibility of using professional number plates from another Member State by recognised and reliable transport operators of that other Member State as part of their commercial activities is prohibited?










(d)


Must the above questions, in any event, be answered in the affirmative if, on account of the applicable national rules, the operator concerned of the other Member State is de facto denied access to the market (refusal to recognise the professional number plates of the other Member State and, at the same time, impossibility of obtaining national professional number plates in his own name in the required amount)?














4.


Does the commercial intra-Community trade in brand-new motor vehicles, which have not yet been properly registered and bear a professional number plate of a Member State, fall (in addition) within the scope of the free movement of goods and, in particular, under the protection of Article 35 TFEU?
If the answer to the above question is in the negative:










5.


Is the assessment different where it is proved that possibly comparable national professional number plates in the Member State concerned (1) do not exist, or (2) cannot be acquired by an operator established in another Member State, or (3) can only be acquired by him under difficult conditions, or (4) can only be acquired by him under unreasonable (economic) conditions?
If the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative:










6.


Must Article 35 TFEU be interpreted as precluding national legislation – such as the applicable fourth sentence of Paragraph 20(1) of the FZV, former version, at issue in the main proceedings (retained in the fourth sentence of Paragraph 46(1) of the FZV, new version) – which prohibits the possibility of using professional number plates from another Member State where brand-new motor vehicles, which have not yet been properly registered, are exported from the Federal Republic of Germany?
If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative:










7.


Must Article 36 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that any restrictions on the trade in such vehicles in a particular case must been justified by the protection of the interests covered by Article 36 TFEU or the fulfilment of the overriding requirements recognised by the Court of Justice of the European Union?
If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative:










8.


Are the considerations generally invoked by the German legislature to justify a comprehensive prohibition on ‘remote registration’ insufficient in the light of Article 36 TFEU if, in the individual case of the operator concerned, it can be established beyond dispute that,






(i)


the Austrian professional number plates concerned can effectively be accessed via EUCARIS,










(ii)


all other data for the purpose of ensuring the lawful use of the professional number plates are always available in the vehicle and thus on-site checks and vehicle identification measures are not impeded,










(iii)


the number plates and the vehicles driven with them are always correctly insured,










(iv)


the reliability of the operator concerned has been verified in its own Member State and can be proven if necessary,










(v)


there is not a single fact from which a risk of international illegal trafficking in vehicles, vehicle theft, illegal procurement of vehicle documents, fraud in connection with vehicle damage (write-off) and document forgery could be inferred,










(vi)


less intrusive and reasonable means of maintaining public safety and order are available, which also apply to national operators in the context of the use of national professional number plates (for instance, the requirement to keep a correct logbook, as the operator concerned is already required to do under national law)?










ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5573/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)